Monterey Park City Council
January 15, 2025

CITY COUNCIL OF MONTEREY PARK

THE CITY COUNCIL ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE FORMER

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, THE MONTEREY PARK FINANCING

AUTHORITY AND THE MONTEREY PARK GEOLOGIC HAZARD ABATEMENT DISTRICT AGENDA

REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MONTEREY PARK CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
320 W. NEWMARK AVENUE, MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754

Wednesday
January 15, 2025
6:30 p.m.

GENERAL INFORMATION
Documents related to an Agenda item are available to the public in the City Clerk’s Office located at 320 West Newmark Avenue, Monterey Park, CA 91754, during normal business hours and the City’s website at http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/AgendaCenter/City-Council-17.

The public may watch the meeting live on the city’s cable channel MPKTV (AT&T U -verse, channel 99 or Charter Communications, channel 182) or by visiting the city’s website at http://www.montereypark.ca.gov/133/City-Council-Meeting-Videos. P er the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call City Hall at (626) 307- 1359 for reasonable accommodation at least 24 hours before a meeting. Council Chambers are wheelchair accessible.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
You may speak up to 5 minutes on an/each Agenda item. You may combine up to 2 minutes of time with another person’s speaking. No person may speak more than a total of 10 minutes. The Mayor and City Council may change the amount of time allowed for speakers. Written Communication will be accepted up to 24 hours before the meeting via email to [email protected] or by completing an online form at www.montereypark.ca.gov/writtencomm.

While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow the City Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council may briefly respond to comments after Public Communications is closed. Persons may, in addition to any other matter within the City Council's subject-matter jurisdiction, comment on Agenda Items at this time. If you provide public comment on a specific Agenda item at this time, however, you cannot later provide comments at the time the Agenda Item is considered.

MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Monterey Park is to provide excellent service, foster growth and opportunity, and create a joyous and collaborative environment.

LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to acknowledge that the land we inhabit today was once known as Tovangaar, the home of the Gabrieleño- Tongva people. We show our respect to the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, as well as all Indigenous people, past, present, and future, and honor their labor as original caretakers of this land. We commit to uplifting the Gabrieleño-Tongva people, invite you to acknowledge the history, and join us in caring for this land.

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, January 15, 2025 - Page 2

CALL TO ORDER Mayor
FLAG SALUTE The Monterey Park Police Explorers
ROLL CALL Henry Lo, Vinh Ngo, Jose Sanchez, Thomas Wong, Elizabeth Yang

AGENDA ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, CHANGES AND ADOPTIONS

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS

STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
• City Manager’s Office
• Library
• Community Development

[1.] PRESENTATION

1-A. DEVELOPMENT UPDATES – COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

[2.] OLD BUSINESS

2-A. UPDATE ON THE WORK OF THE JANUARY 21 MEMORIAL AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE

AND CONSIDERATION OF FURTHER ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and filing this report on the permanent memorial process; (2) Providing further direction to staff on next steps; and (3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

2-B. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ON CITY’S UPDATED INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

ORDINANCE FEASIBILITY/FEE STUDY
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and filing the report and presentation;
(2) Providing direction to staff; and
(3) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

[3.] CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NOS. 3A-3G

All items under the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. Specific items may be removed from the Consent Calendar at the request of any member of the City Council for separate consideration.

3-A. MONTHLY INVESTMENT REPORT – DECEMBER 2024
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and filing the monthly investment report; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, January 15, 2025 - Page 3

3-B. WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS

LICENSE TAX SCHEDULE
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-C. WAIVE FURTHER READING AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE SETTING SPEED LIMITS BASED UPON CERTIFICATION OF THE 2017 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY FOR SPEED LIMITS EFFECTIVE THROUGH OCTOBER 2031 AND THE 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY OF 26 LOCATIONS FOR SPEED LIMITS THROUGH OCTOBER 2038
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-D CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO WAIVE SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.32

UPDATING EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Waiving second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 2.32 of Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) revising Employee Relations procedures; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-E. RECEIVE AND FILE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT’S 2024 ANNUAL REPORT It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and filing the Fire Department’s 2024 Annual Report; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-F. RECEIVE AND FILE STAFF REPORT SUMMARIZING THE STATUS OF THE EMERGENCY

REPLACEMENT OF FIRE DEPARTMENT SELF-CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUSES It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Receiving and Filing the staff report summarizing the status of the emergency replacement of self-contained breathing apparatuses; and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

3-G. AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE PREPARATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEER’S ESTIMATES (“PS&E”) FOR MONTEREY PASS ROAD COMPLETE STREET

PROJECT
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services agreement with Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. for the preparation of PS&E for Monterey Pass Road Complete Street Project in an amount not to exceed $1,883,170; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

Monterey Park City Council Agenda, January 15, 2025 - Page 4

[4.] PUBLIC HEARING – None.

[5.] NEW BUSINESS

5-A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK,

CALIFORNIA APPOINTING COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO SPECIFIC

ORGANIZATIONS
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting a Resolution appointing representatives to specific organizations; and (2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

[6.] CITY COMMUNICATIONS (CITY COUNCIL)

6-A. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA DECLARING THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2025 AS NATIONAL HUMAN

TRAFFICKING PREVENTION MONTH ( AS REQUESTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER

SANCHEZ)
It is recommended that the City Council consider:
(1) Adopting a Resolution declaring the month of January 2025 as National Human Trafficking Prevention Month; and
(2) Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

[7.] FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

[8.] CLOSED SESSION (IF REQUIRED; CITY ATTORNEY TO ANNOUNCE)

ADJOURN

City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 15, 2025
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Update on the Work of the January 21 Memorial Ad Hoc Subcommittee and Consideration of Further Action
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing this report on the permanent memorial process;

2. Providing further direction to staff on next steps; and

3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The January 21 Memorial Ad Hoc Subcommittee made progress in exploring options for a permanent memorial to honor the victims of the 2023 mass shooting and learning more about how other communities affected by mass violence have addressed this important work. Staff is updating Council on the progress of the Subcommittee and asking for further direction from City Council on next steps.

BACKGROUND:

In response to the tragic mass shooting on January 21, 2023, which claimed 11 lives, the City of Monterey Park has worked to support the community’s mental health and healing in variety of ways, from providing support and counseling in City facilities, to assisting with the opening of the MPK Hope Resiliency Center and the establishment of the MPK Healing Fund, to holding events to bring community members together to remember and honor victims and survivors.

Since the shooting, the City has also considered the establishment a permanent memorial to honor the victims and support community healing.

Ø Preliminary Research and the First 12 Months
At the City Council meeting on September 6, 2023, in order to help guide initial discussion and inform any next steps the Council was provided with preliminary research on memorials for six mass casualty events in the United States : Sandy Hook Elementary School (Sandy Hook, Connecticut), Route 91 Harvest Music Festival (Las Vegas, Nevada), Inland Regional Center Attack (San Bernardino, California), Borderline Bar and Old Business - 2A

Staff Report

January 15, 2025
Grill Shooting (Thousand Oaks, CA), PULSE Nightclub (Orlando, Florida), and the Virginia Tech Shooting (Blacksburg, Virginia) .

The City Council initially considered the six different memorial committees, their composition, methods of community input, responsibilities, timelines and budgets. At that point, the discussion was preliminary, as mass casualty experts that staff had consulted with advised that it was very early in the healing process to begin to make decisions on a permanent memorial.

On January 21, 2024, the City held a vigil to mark one year since the shooting and to allow the community to come together in unity and support. The event incorporated Buddhist chanting, prayer, a Tongva blessing, music from Mark Keppel’s string quintet, and remarks from City of Monterey Park elected officials, and survivors, family and community members. The City has a vigil to mark the second year since the shooting scheduled for January 21, 2025 at 6:00 p.m. in front of Monterey Park City Hall.

Ø Council-Established Ad Hoc Subcommittee
In May 2024, staff brought the permanent memorial discussion back to City Council, and an ad hoc subcommittee to further consider the issue of a permanent memorial in Monterey Park was established. The subcommittee is comprised of two members of the City Council: Mayor Thomas Wong and Councilmember Henry Lo.

Since its establishment, the subcommittee, along with City Manager Inez Alvarez and Assistant City Manager Diana Garcia, has met with individuals who have personal experience setting up memorials in the aftermath of mass casualty incidents, including Tennille Pereira, who has worked to support the community in the aftermath of the Route 91 shooting in Las Vegas and Anita Ahuja, who has helped communities respond to mass violence for over twenty years. The subcommittee has considered various topics associated with the establishment of a memorial, including funding, outreach and communication, staffing, committee composition, professional facilitators, memorial design, request for proposal processes, and project timelines.

Ø Partnership with Chinatown Service Center
Since the mass shooting, City staff has worked closely with the Chinatown Service Center (CSC) to support the community’s healing. In September 2024, Nina Loc, CSC’s Chief Behavioral Health Officer and then Director of the MPK Hope Resiliency Center, informed staff that CSC was initiating discussions with the family members of victims and the survivors about their sentiments on a permanent memorial. As a part of this feedback process CSC staff also created a survey to gather additional feedback from victims and survivors about the permanent memorial.

After approximately three months of discussions and surveying the family members and survivors, CSC staff pushed the survey out in January 2025 to the greater community to

Staff Report

January 15, 2025
gather input. This survey will run through the end of February 2025. The City has shared the survey via social media, the City website, and promotion in our City facilities, and will distribute paper survey at the Bruggemeyer Library and the Langley Senior Center.

Initial survey results indicate a general interest in establishing a memorial, though 5% of respondents indicated that they are "uncertain", and another 5% are "not interested” in establishing a memorial. Respondent largely support an outdoor garden memorial, or a mural, memorial wall or sculpture.

Ø Next Steps
In cities affected by mass casualty events, outreach efforts to establish a permanent memorial—such as surveys, meetings, and town hall events—are often led by Resiliency Center staff who maintain close ties to the impacted communities. These efforts help ensure that the memorial reflects the desires and needs of those most affected.

In Monterey Park, staff from the MPK Hope Resiliency Center are continuing to survey residents through at least February 2025 to gauge interest and gather input on the potential establishment of a permanent memorial. City staff are currently assisting in promoting this survey to ensure broad community participation.

Subcommittee and staff recommend that the City Council provide direction on the next steps in this process. Possible options include:
• Allowing Additional Outreach: Waiting until outreach efforts are concluded to gain further input from the community.
• Designating a Memorial Committee: Provide direction regarding the creation of a committee; or delegation of oversight to members of the City Council or other entity.
• Dedicating City Property: Identifying and dedicating a City property or space for a memorial.
• Fundraising Efforts
: Directing a designated entity to initiate fundraising for the memorial
with a set timeframe for these efforts and based on funds collected establish next steps.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this discussion.

Staff Report

January 15, 2025
Respectfully submitted by: Reviewed by:

Diana Garcia
Assistant City Manager
Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Reviewed by:

Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:

1. September 6, 2023 Staff Report

2. May 1, 2024 Staff Report (without attachments)

ATTACHMENT 1
September 6, 2023 Staff Report
Staff Report
January 15, 2025

City Council Staff Report
DATE
: September 6, 2023
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: T
he Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Inez Alvarez, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion of Establishing a Memorial Committee for the January 21st Mass Shooting Incident
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the staff report and attachments;

2. Discussing the establishment an independent Memorial Committee for the January 21st Mass Shooting Incident;

3. If desirable, providing additional staff direction; and

4. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On January 21st, the City of Monterey Park experienced a tragic mass shooting incident that resulted in the loss of 11 lives and left the community deeply affected. The City recognizes the need to honor the memory of the victims and create a space for healing, remembrance, and reflection for the entire community.

In r
esponse to this tragic event, there has been public interest and support for the creation of a permanent memorial that will serve as a place for residents and visitors to pay their respects and remember the lives that were lost. The memorial would serve not only as a tribute to the victims but also as a symbol of resilience and unity for the Monterey Park community. Communities affected by similar tragedies often establish committees that tackle the fundraising, outreach and planning for permanent memorials, which consist of a diverse group of community members, stakeholders, and experts in memorial design and public spaces.

Ini
tial research on the memorials for six mass casualty events in the United States is attached for Council to review and to help guide initial discussion. Council may provide direction on next steps and/or request this item to be put on the agenda for discussion at future meetings.

BACKGROUND:

Other communities affected by mass violence have formed commissions to establish permanent memorials to their victims. Attachment 1 outlines staff’s initial research on the processes undertaken in response to six tragedies: Sandy Hook Elementary School New Business - 5A

Staff Report

September 6, 2023
processes undertaken in response to six tragedies: Sandy Hook Elementary School (Sandy Hook, Connecticut), Route 91 Harvest Music Festival (Las Vegas, Nevada), Inland Regional Center Attack (San Bernardino, California), Borderline Bar and Grill Shooting (Thousand Oaks, CA), PULSE Nightclub (Orlando, Florida), and the Virginia Tech Shooting (Blacksburg, Virginia). This table includes the composition of the committees; the timelines for the establishment of the committees and the completion date of the memorial; the outreach and methodologies used by each committee to gather input from the community; the budget for the projects; and additional information on the processes.

This information is provided to illustrate the potential budgets, timelines and considerations that Council may want to contemplate as they begin to consider how best to move forward. While some communities have established memorials within a matter of months, others have taken years. The memorial in Sandy Hook, Connecticut for example took nearly 10 years to complete. Accordingly, the budgets for memorials vary from $70,000 for the Virginia Tech memorial to $10 million for the PULSE nightclub memorial and museum. The
average cost for the six examples is $4.25 million. Any potential Memorial Committee to investigate these topics, as well as the planning, design, and implementation of the official memorial to honor the victims of the January 21st shooting.

Additional items for consideration for a potential Memorial Committee may include:

Name of the Committee: Establish a name for the Memorial Committee.

Committee Members: Identify how many committee members would be appropriate and identify potential persons to serve on the committee, which may include a variety of community members, commissioners, stakeholders, patrons/survivors from the incident , family members of the victims, and/or other appropriate persons that will represent a diverse and inclusive group.

Committee Roles and Responsibilities: Determine roles and items that the committee will be responsible for undertaking, which may include some the of the categories listed below or others identified:

Location Selection: Identify potential locations within the city for the memorial and assess their feasibility, accessibility, and appropriateness for the intended purpose.

Conceptualization and Design: Work collaboratively to develop conceptual designs for the memorial, considering input from the community, victim families, and experts in public spaces and memorials. Or will there be an open RFP process to allow for concept submissions by design contractors.

Staff Report

September 6, 2023
Community Engagement: Facilitate public input and engagement sessions to gather input from residents, victim families, and other stakeholders regarding the design, features, and significance of the memorial.

Budgeting and Fundraising: Review established permanent memorials in other locations that have experienced mass casualty events . Analyze their budgeting and fundraising strategies, taking note of community partnerships and sources of funding.

Timeline: Study the timelines of memorial development in those aforementioned locations, examining the phases of conceptualization, design, approvals, construction, and dedication.

Partnerships: Explore potential partnerships with local organizations, businesses, and nonprofits that may offer support, resources, or expertise in memorial development.

Process Documentation: Develop a comprehensive process outline for the establishment of the memorial, considering lessons learned from other memorial projects.

Community Updates: Identify how often the Committee should be providing an update. 2023-2024 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

This action helps meet the MPK Healing 2023-24 goal of “providing community support resulting from the shooting incident”.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this discussion.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Inez Alvarez
Interim City Manager
Diana Garcia
Interim Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by:

Karl H. Berger
City Attorney

Staff Report

September 6, 2023
ATTACHMENT:

1. Memorial Committee Research

Staff Report
September 6, 2023

ATTACHMENT 1
Memorial Committee Research

MASS VIOLENCE

INCIDENT (MVI) LOCATION MVI INCIDENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OUTREACH /

METHODOLOGY PROJECT FORMATION

DATE PROJECT COMPLETION PROJECT BUDGET ADDITIONAL NOTES Sandy Hook
Elementary School Sandy Hook, CT 12/14/2012
Sandy Hook
Permanent
Memorial
Commission
Began in September 2013 by the
Newton Board of Selectmen;
Permanent Memorial Commission;
appointed 9 residents for determining
the nature, location, and funding of a
permanent memorial to honor the
memory of those lost in the Sandy
Hook Shooting
Digital survey, monthly
committee meetings
welcoming public
comment; three-phase
selection process
The Sandy Hook Permanent Memorial is a
memorial in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, that honors
the twenty children and six educators who were
victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School
shooting on the morning of December 14, 2012.

The memorial is located at 28 Riverside Road in the
woods adjacent to the new Sandy Hook Elementary
School, built near the site of the original school that was razed. Design: Reflecting pool and sycamore
tree, visitor plaque
Sept. 2013 Nov. 2022 - (Completed
approx. 10 years after
MVI)
$3.7M ($2.5M from
State Bond
Commission)
Route 91 Harvest
Music Festival Las Vegas, NV 10/1/2017
1 October
Memorial
Committee
Formed in Sept. 2019, committee was
tasted with creating a memorial to
remember those who perished in the
events of 1 October and honor the
many heroes who inspired the nation
with their bravery in the face of pure
evil. Seven appointed to the
committee.

Surveys, focus groups, and
meetings; finalist designs
were on display for voting
Las Vegas Community Healing Garden (erected in 3
days) features a Remembrance Wall, a grove of 58
trees lining a paved path, shrubs, and flowers, all
encircling a beautiful oak tree - the Tree of Life -
donated by Siegfried and Roy. Now managed and cared
for by the City of Las Vegas and the Las Vegas
Community Healing Garden Committee, continues to
grow and thrive.

FUTURE PROJECT: Two-acre land donated by MGM
Resort at on the northeast corner of the festival site.

Selected design: Garden path and 58 beams of light (58
represents the total of people who were killed in the
Las Vegas Strip massacre in October 2017); Alternative:
15 large horse statues representing the home states
and countries of the victims, as well as two smaller
horses in honor of the dozens of children whose
parents were killed
Sept. 2019 INCOMPLETE - GOAL:

Make a recommendation
to the Clark County
Board of County
Commissioners by
September 2023 that will
include specific plans for
a site, design,
programming and
ongoing maintenance
needs, as well as funding
solutions, for a world-
class permanent
memorial (Scheduled for
9/5/23)
$50,000 awarded to
RFQ finalist; Project
EST. $7M - $10M -
Once approved,
committee will look
into fundraising
options/goals
Donation fund balance at
$58,355.68 as of 07/26/23

MASS VIOLENCE

INCIDENT (MVI) LOCATION MVI INCIDENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OUTREACH /

METHODOLOGY PROJECT FORMATION

DATE PROJECT COMPLETION PROJECT BUDGET ADDITIONAL NOTES Terrorist attack at
Inland Regional Center
in San Bernardino
San Bernardino,
CA 12/2/2015
December 2
Memorial
Committee
(2016) Then-Board of Supervisors
Chairman James Ramos appointed
then-Fifth District Supervisor Josie
Gonzales to work with County staff
on assembling a committee to help
build a memorial. The Memorial
Committee consisted of
representatives from public safety,
the departments of Behavioral
Health, Public Health, Real Estate
Services, the County Administrative
Office and most importantly,
representatives from the
Environmental Health Services
division and family members of our
employees who killed in the MVI
Meetings, discussions, and
presentations with
committee members;
worked with consultant for
permanent memorial
guidance
The Curtain of Courage Memorial was designed by
Walter Hood, a world-renowned artist who
collaborated with the December 2 Memorial
Committee and the families of those who were
taken from the MVI. Family members picked the
phrases and colors for each of the 14 alcoves which
Hood felt resembled a bullet-proof vest, a curtain
of courage, where the community could come
together and celebrate and remember those who
were wounded and those who were killed in the
attack. Design: Steel frame, laser cut steel,
architectural coil curtain, glass, concrete bench
Feb. 2016 Jun. 2022 $1.5M (project only) Hired art consultant for the selection of artist; handled
RFQ/bid; County obtained
bids/awarded contract,
appropriated into CIP budget
Borderline Bar and Grill
Shooting
Thousand Oaks,
CA 11/7/2018 N/A
Representatives from City of
Thousand Oaks, Ventura County
Sheriff’s Office, and Conejo
Recreation and Park District
Working groups from City
of Thousand Oaks, Ventura
County Sheriff’s Office and
Conejo Recreation and Park
District; Chief of Police
worked with families of the
12 victims regarding the
decision of the healing
garden
"Borderline 12" healing garden at Conejo Creek
Park; Design: The garden, which was designed to
be a place of contemplation, meditation and
prayer, will feature 12 granite slab benches to
represent each of the victims. The walkway will
include 248 pavers of a unique color to represent
those who survived the shooting. A water feature
with 12 vertical jets will be added to the park’s
existing pond to represent the community lifting up
the memory of the victims.

Mar. 2019;
City Council
made it a
priority to
establish a
permanent
memorial
Nov. 2019 $250,000 from
City's General Fund
awarded to parks
district as a grant
Conejo Recreation and Park
District completed project

MASS VIOLENCE

INCIDENT (MVI) LOCATION MVI INCIDENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OUTREACH /

METHODOLOGY PROJECT FORMATION

DATE PROJECT COMPLETION PROJECT BUDGET ADDITIONAL NOTES Orlando Nightclub
Shooting (PULSE) Orlando, FL 6/12/2016
onePULSE
Foundation
Memorial
Board of trustees & chairman's
ambassadors council
Town halls/forums began in
October 2017 for a
permanent memorial;
memorial survey conducted
to provide input on the
sight of the Pulse nightclub
(family members, first
responders, survivors, and
general public).

PROJECT RFP: Launched in March 2019, the unique
two-stage global design competition garnered 68
submissions from 19 countries and was led by
Dovetail Design Strategists, the country’s leading
independent architect selection firm. The
submissions were narrowed down to six finalist
teams who developed concept designs for a public
exhibition and comment period that took place in
early October. Design: onePULSE Foundation plans
to build the National Pulse Memorial on the site of
the Pulse nightclub with the museum and
education center located at 438 West Kaley Street
– approximately one-third of a mile from Pulse. The
memorial will be free and open to the public year-
round.

Jun. 2017 INCOMPLETE - The
foundation is waiting to
collect another $3.4
million for the project;
experiencing issues with
the property owners
$10 million -
Foundation
currently has $6.6
million in tourism
tax dollars for the
permanent
museum, but needs
another $3.4 million
Virginia Tech Shooting Blacksburg, VA 4/16/2007 VT Committee Hokies United, the Board of Visitors,
the Alumni Association, Student
Affairs, the Virginia Tech Foundation,
teaching staff, the Korean Students
Association and members associated
with architecture and landscape at
Tech
Committee meetings April 16 Memorial; In the hours following the April 16 tragedy, the student-driven volunteer
organization Hokies United placed 32 Hokie Stones
on the Drillfield. The semi-circle of stones became a
place to gather, to mourn, and to reflect, and the
poignant display inspired today’s memorial.

Design: As a community, [they] dedicate 32
engraved Hokie Stones in honor and in memory of
the members of [their] Hokie family who lost their
lives. Two stone paths have been constructed to
allow viewing of the stones and a memorial flower
area at the base of the Reviewing Stand. A row of
shrubs provides a backdrop to the stones between
the pathways, and ground lighting illuminates the
stones at night.

Apr. 2007 Aug. 2007 (day before
the start of the fall
semester)
$60,000 to $70,000.

However, because
members of the
community and
local businesses
donated money,
time, and labor, it
was ultimately built
for just over
$20,000. This
enabled to
committee to avoid
applying to the
Hokie Spirit
Memorial Fund for
money.

ATTACHMENT 2
May 1, 2024 Staff Report
Staff Report
January 15, 2025

City Council Staff Report
DATE: May 1, 2024

AGENDA ITEM
NO: Old Business - 2A
TO: T
he Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Diana Garcia, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Establishing an Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the City Council to Discuss the Creation of a n independent Memorial Committee for the January 21 , 2023 Mass Casualty Incident
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Establishing an ad hoc subcommittee comprised of two members of the City Council which will appoint and give initial direction to an independent Memorial Committee for the January 21, 2023 Mass Casualty Incident; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On January 21, 2023 , the City of Monterey Park suffered a mass casualty incident that resulted in the loss of 11 lives, nine injured individuals, and left the community deeply affected. The City recognizes the need to honor the memory of the victims and create a space for healing and remembrance for the entire community.

Com
munities affected by similar tragedies often establish committees consist ing of a diverse group of community members and stakeholders which consider the fundraising, location, community input and planning for permanent memorials.

Th
e City Manager is proposing the establishment of an ad hoc subcommittee of two City Council members. This ad hoc subcommittee will be tasked with appointing members to a January 21 Memorial Committee and providing initial direction on the roles and responsibilities of the Memorial Committee, as well as the method and frequency by which the Committee should report to the City Council on its progress.

BACKGROUND:

Many communities affected by mass violence have formed committees to establish permanent memorials to honor victims and survivors . Because each community has its own unique set of circumstances, each memorial committee has different factors, considerations and issues to consider as it plans for a permanent memorial space. In addition, committee members will need to be advised that the completion of a memorial project can take several years to create as many factors must be taken into consideration when establishing a memorial representative of the impacted community. At the September 6, 2023 meeting, City Council was provided with research on six different

Staff Report

May 1, 2024

memorial committees, their composition, methods of community input, responsibilities, timelines and budgets. This staff report and research is included as Attachment 1.

In order to begin exploring the creation of a permanent memorial to honor the victims and survivors of the January 21, 2023 mass shooting in Monterey Park, the City Council may consider forming a temporary subcommittee comprised of two City Council members.

This subcommittee's purpose will be to select individuals for a Memorial Committee and to offer initial guidance on the duties and functions of the Memorial Committee, including how often the Committee should update the City Council on its activities. Additionally, the ad hoc subcommittee may wish to consider the following issues and responsibilities as it establishes a January 21 Memorial Committee:

1. Composition
The Memorial Committee may consist of a diverse group of community members, stakeholders, survivors, family members of victims, and experts in memorial design and public spaces. The committee should represent the demographics and interests of not only the Monterey Park community but also the regional community that was impacted by this tragedy.

2. Roles and Objectives
The committee may be tasked with:
• Selecting an appropriate name for the memorial committee. • Deciding when and how often to meet.
• Identifying potential locations within the city for the memorial and assessing their feasibility, accessibility, and appropriateness.
• Developing conceptual designs for the memorial in collaboration with the community members, stakeholders, survivors, victim families, and design experts.
• Facilitating public engagement sessions to gather input on the design and significance of the memorial.
• Researching budgeting and fundraising strategies employed by other memorial projects and identifying potential sources of funding. • Establishing a timeline for the various phases of memorial development, including conceptualization, design, approvals, construction, and dedication.
• Exploring partnerships with local organizations, businesses, and nonprofits to support the memorial project.

3. Reporting Frequency
The January 21 Memorial Committee will provide regular updates to the City Council on its progress and activities. The frequency of these updates will be determined by the ad hoc subcommittee, with consideration given to the milestones and timelines established for the memorial project.

Staff Report

May 1, 2024
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with the establishment of a January 21 Memorial Committee.

Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:

1. Staff Report and Attachments from September 6, 2023 City Council Meeting Respectfully submitted by:

Diana Garcia
Assistant City Manager

City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 15, 2025
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Serrano, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: Discussion of Findings on City’s Updated Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Feasibility/Fee Study
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the report and presentation;

2. Providing direction to staff; and

3. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 6, 2023, the City Council adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance ("IHO”) and an in-lieu fee formula to encourage affordable housing in Monterey Park. The Council also directed the City Manager to assess the IHO’s financial feasibility and recommend in-lieu fees where necessary. To assist in this evaluation, the City partnered with the San Gabriel Valley Council of G overnments ( “SGVCOG”) and engaged Economic & Planning Systems (“EPS”) for a tailored feasibility study.

On January 17, 2024, the feasibility study was presented to City Council and found that the IHO's requirements could present financial challenges for new residential projects, particularly smaller and mid-sized developments. Based on this analysis, the City Council directed staff to pause enforcement of the IHO for one year and revisit its financial feasibility in the coming year.

EPS was hired to review the previously prepared feasibility study and update it to reflect current market conditions. In updating the feasibility study, during the Council -directed IHO enforcement pause, EPS looked at both direct and indirect factors that may change the financial feasibility of implementing the IHO. The study’s overall conclusion states that while the requirements of the IHO are likely to remain financially challenging for new residential development within the City and may constrain new pr ojects, current market conditions have demonstrated improved feasibility of new residential projects overall since the previous analysis.

Old Business - 2B

Staff Report

January 15, 2025
BACKGROUND:

The City adopted the 2021-2029 Housing Element of the General Plan on January 19, 2022; it was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development on March 20, 2023. Housing Element Program 15 provides that the City Council will consider an inclusionary housing program. Such programs require certain residential and mixed-use developments to designate a percentage of units within the development as affordable housing. Alternatively, a developer may construct off-site units, or pay a fee or dedicate land in the City for the creation of affordable units.

To implement Program 15 of the Housing Element, the Council began consideration of an IHO in Fall of 2022. The IHO was ultimately approved on September 6, 2023. Along with the IHO, a formula for calculating an in-lieu fee was adopted for developers who opt to pay a fee, rather than construct units on-site was also adopted. This formula requires the developer to pay the “affordability gap,” which represents the gap between the market- rate price (sales or rent) and the affordable price (sales or rent) of the inclusionary unit.

EPS was hired to review the previously prepared feasibility study and update it to reflect current market conditions. EPS drew on local research and input from City representatives, revisited the building prototypes representative of development patterns in the City, and assessed how the City’s IHO and in-lieu fee formula would affect the different prototype developments.

The assessment utilized data on typical construction and land costs and rents and sales prices for recently-built housing projects in the City and in the larger San Gabriel Valley subregion. Additionally, EPS factored in policy changes that affect the development costs of projects. Specifically, the City updated parking requirements in multi-family residential developments in October of 2024, which requires less parking in multi-family residential projects, and subsequently lowers the cost of construction.

The data allowed EPS to evaluate how likely a developer would be to pursue the construction of the modeled prototypes, based on industry standard financial feasibility metrics. The evaluation modeled the financial feasibility for the prototypes under three different assumptions:

1. That they are rented or sold completely at market rents/sale prices;

2. That they include the affordable units required by the IHO; and

3. That they pay an in-lieu fee aligned with the requirements of the IHO (i.e., based on the “affordability gap”).

The findings of the analysis generally indicate that the financial impacts of the City’s IHO and in-lieu fee formula may dampen new residential development in the City.

City Council may consider one or a combination of the following next steps:
- Phase-in inclusionary requirements over a period of time - Reinstate the inclusionary housing policy for ownership prototypes only

Staff Report

January 15, 2025
- Adjust IHO requirements such that rental projects automatically qualify for State Density Bonus
- Adopt an in -lieu fee at a level that is lower than the equivalent of providing units on-site, knowing that developers will opt to pay the fee - Continue to pause some or all inclusionary requirements and reassess in the next one to two years as market conditions change
2024-25 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

The updated IHO feasibility study by EPS supports the City’s goal of strengthening the local economy and enhancing housing opportunities by evaluating and providing the City Council with insights on how a housing policy designed to create affordable housin g at various income levels can either facilitate or hinder the City’s economic growth.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no identifiable fiscal impacts associated with the presentation of findings of the IHO feasibility study, other than the cost of preparing the updated study.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Jessica Serrano
Director of Community
Development Department
Beth Chow, AICP
Planning Manager
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Justin A. Tamayo
Assistant City Attorney
ATTACHMENT(S):

1. Summary Memo of Updated Report dated December 20, 2024

2. Development Feasibility Analysis and In-Lieu Fee Calculation for Monterey Park Inclusionary Housing Ordinance dated January 11, 2024

Staff Report
January 15, 2025

ATTACHMENT 1
Summary Memo of Updated Report dated
December 20, 2024

Monterey Park IH Feasibility Update Memo_12.20.24

M EMORANDUM
To: City of Monterey Park
From: Economic & Planning Systems
Subject: Update to 2023 Monterey Park Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Analysis
Date: December 20, 2024
The City of Monterey Park (City) engaged Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to conduct an update to its feasibility analysis of the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO). EPS previously conducted a feasibility study of the City’s IHO in late 2023, and this update aligns with the City Council’s decision at that time to pause implementation of the IHO for 12 months and reassess its feasibility in early 2025. In the current analysis, EPS updated assumptions regarding the analyzed residential
prototype products, including using cost and revenue
assumptions that reflect current market conditions, as follows:

Development Program Updates:
• With the City’s newly approved minimum parking
requirements, all prototypes are assumed to have one
parking space per unit, except the townhome prototype,
which still has two parking spaces.
• For the condominium prototype in the Mixed-Use zoning area, the current analysis increases the density to 70
dwelling units per acre from 30 dwelling units per acre.

Cost and Revenue Updates:
• Construction costs are assumed to remain the same.
• Land acquisition costs increased.
• Rent and sales price for all prototypes increased, except for the townhome prototypes, for which the sales price remained constant.

Memorandum: Update to 2023 Monterey Park Inclusionary Housing Feasibility Analysis Page | 2
The key findings and recommendations stemming from the updated feasibility analysis are summarized below.

1. The financial feasibility of residential projects improved from 2023 analysis due to changes in market conditions and reduced parking requirements. All residential prototypes yielded an improved feasibility, with the exception of the townhome prototype. The City’s reduced parking requirements was a major driver in reducing overall development costs. Additionally, increases in market rent and sales price resulted in increased prototype value. These changes resulted in improved feasibility despite assumed increases in land costs increasing. Townhome prototype feasibility did not improve because the parking requirement and sales price assumptions for the prototype stayed constant, while land costs increased.

2. Renter-occupied residential projects continue to appear financially challenging to build in the City, while owner-occupied projects appear financially feasible. Although the feasibility of developing of rental residential products improved since the 2023 analysis, the analysis indicates that these products, in both Mixed-Use zoned areas and Citywide, appear financially infeasible on average at market rates. By contrast, owner-occupied attached townhomes and multifamily condominiums appear to be feasible at market rates, and demonstrate sufficient development feasibility to absorb the additional impact of an inclusionary requirement, specifically townhomes and higher density condominiums in the Mixed- Use zone. Condominiums outside the Mixed-Use zone seem to be feasible at market rates, but may not be feasible with the addition of inclusionary requirements.

3. The zoning allowances under the City’s Mixed-Use zoning designation may improve the financial feasibility of residential projects. Residential projects in the Mixed-Use zoned areas of the City generate a higher return on investment than development in other parts of the City due to the Mixed-Use zone’s unlimited density allowances. However, in order for future projects in the Mixed-Use zone to support the additional cost of inclusionary units, they would likely need to achieve even higher densities than what is proposed for current pipeline projects.

4. Although feasibility improved across most residential prototypes since the 2023 analysis, not all prototype products demonstrated enough feasibility to support an inclusionary housing policy. To improve the efficacy of the IHO in developing affordable units in the community while also supporting new residential development overall, the City may consider one or a combination of the following next steps:
o Phase-in inclusionary requirements over a period of time o Reinstate the inclusionary housing policy for ownership prototypes only o Adjust IHO requirements such that rental projects automatically qualify for State Density Bonus
o Adopt an in-lieu fee at a level that is lower than the equivalent of providing units on-site, knowing that developers will opt to pay the fee o Continue to pause some or all inclusionary requirements and reassess in the next one to two years as market conditions change

Economic & Planning Systems
Page | 3
It is important to note that the analysis is a point-in-time assessment of typical new market-rate development projects completed in late 2024. The findings are not deterministic of the feasibility of all development in the City, as there are many variables that can impact costs and values and resulting feasibility of any individual project.

Similarly, future market conditions can also change the financial forces impacting real estate development generally and inclusionary housing programs specifically.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

The Economics of Land Use
800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 410  Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.489.3838  www.epsys.com

INCLUSIONARY

HOUSING FEASIBILITY
STUDY UPDATE:

PRELIMINARY

FINDINGS TO STAFF
City of Monterey Park
December 20, 2024

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 1 Housing in Monterey Park
 Median Market Sale
Price, detached Single
Family Home: $970,000
 Average Market Rent,
Apartment (subregion):
$2,900/month
 “
Typical” household can
afford:
• Single Family Home:
$472,000
• Rent: $1,900/month
Households in Monterey Park
 Median Household
Income: $78,892
 Average Persons Per
Household: 2.94
 “Typical” household
considered Low-Income for
Los Angeles County

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 2  Ordinance adopted August 2023
 Inclusionary Requirements:
 City also adopted an in-lieu fee formula, but desires a more standardized and transparent approach to calculating the fee

MONTEREY PARK IHO
Low
Income
9%
Moderate
Income
6%
Moderate
Income
15%
Rental Ownership

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 3

CHANGES IN PROTOTYPE PRODUCTS
 Changes to the parking requirement
– From 2 parking spaces to 1 parking space required per dwelling units of 2
bedrooms or less
– 2023 study analyzed 2 mixed-use mul tifamily rental prototypes, but with new parking requirement, 2024 study includes just 1 mixed-use multifamily rental prototype
 Increased density of mixed-use condominium prototype from 30 du/acre to 70 du/acre
– Density increased to reflect the higher densities in multifamily prod
ucts (rental and for-sale) observed in recent and pipeline projects in the City

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 4

CITYWIDE PROTOTYPE PRODUCTS
Single Family Attached
Townhomes at 20 du/acre
Unit Characteristics
• 1,800 sq. ft.
• 3 bedrooms
• 2 attached garage
park
ing spaces
• Owner-occupied
P
rice: $870,000
Condominiums
at 30 du/acre
Unit Characteristics
• 1,200 sq. ft.
• 2 bedrooms
• 1 parking space in a
podi
um structure
• Owner-occupied
P
rice: $760,000
Multifamily Rental High
Density at 30 du/acre
Unit Characteristics
• 1,100 sq. ft.
• 2 bedrooms
• 1 parking space in a
podi
um structure
• Renter-occupied
R
ent: $2,900/month
Source: JHP Architecture / Urban Design

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 5

MIXED-USE PROTOTYPE PRODUCTS
Source: JHP Architecture / Urban Design
Multifamily Rental
at 70 du/acre
Unit Characteristics
• 900 sq. ft.
• 2 bedrooms
• 1 parking space in a podium
struct
ure
• Renter-occupied
R
ent: $2,900/month
Condominiums
at 70 du/acre
Unit Characteristics
• 1,200 sq. ft.
• 2 bedrooms
• 1 parking space in a podium
struct
ure
• Owner-occupied
P
rice: $760,000

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 6

CHANGES IN MARKET CONDITIONS
 Increased land cost
– 2023 study assumed $2.5M per acre citywide and $4M per acre
in Mixed-Use district
– 2024 update assumes $4M per acre citywide and $6M per acre
in Mixed-Use district
 Increased rent and sales price for all prototypes, except for tow
nhomes
– Monthly rent for a 2-bed room multifamily apartment unit increased from $2,785 to $2,900
– Sales price for a 2-bed room multifamily condominium unit increased from $673,000 to $760,000
– Sales price for a 3-bed room townhome unit stayed
constant at $870,000

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 7

MARKET-RATE PROJECT FEASIBILITY - CITYWIDE
 Multi-family condo
pr
oduct now feasible
at 100% market-rate
due to increase in
price AND decrease in
development cost
 Apartment product
fea
sibility improved
slightly
 Results for condo and
town
home prototypes
indicate sufficient
feasibility to support
an inclusionary
program
Item
Feasibility
Threshold
2023
Re sults
2024
Re sults
Multifamily Apartment - High Density
Development Costs Per Unit $692,000 $632,000
Net Operating Income Per Unit $23,000 $25,000
Yield on Cost 5.5% 3.4% 3.9%
Multifamily Attached Condo
Development Costs Per Unit $673,000 $629,000
Average Sale Price $674,000 $760,000
Profit $1,000 $131,000
Profit Margin 15% 0.1% 20.8%
Single Family Attached Townhome
Development Costs Per Unit $493,000 $568,000
Average Sale Price $870,000 $870,000
Profit $377,000 $301,000
Profit Margin 15% 76.3% 53.0%
Key
Feasible
Infeas
ible

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 8 MARKET-RATE PROJECT FEASIBILITY – MU ZONE
 Multi-family condo
pr
oduct now
feasible at 100%
market-rate due to
increase in price
AND decrease in
development cost
 Apartment product
fea
sibility improved
slightly
 Results for condo
pro
totype indicate
sufficient feasibility
to support an
inclusionary
program
Item
Feasibility
Threshold
2023
Re sults
2024
Re sults
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Us e
Downtown
Development Costs Per Unit $497,000 $511,000
Net Operating Income Per Unit $23,000 $25,000
Yield on Cost 5.5% 4.7% 4.9%
Multifamily Attached Condo -
Mixed Use Downtown
Development Costs Per Unit $641,000 $548,000
Average Sale Price $674,000 $760,000
Profit $33,000 $211,000
Profit Margin 15% 5.0% 38.6%
Key
Feasible
Infeas
ible

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 9

EQUIVALENT IN-LIEU FEE CALCULATION
Item
per Market
Rate Unit [1]
per Market
Rate Sq. Ft. [2]
per Market
Rate Unit [1]
per Market
Rate Sq. Ft. [2]
Citywide Prototypes
9% Low-Income $332,323
6% Moderate-Income $345,423
$54,143 $45.12 $61,689 $51.41
Single Family Attached Townhome 15% Moderate-Income $251,026 $37,654 $20.92 $24,716 $13.73 Mixed-Use Prototypes
9% Low-Income $195,711
6% Moderate-Income $208,811
Multifamily Attached Condo 15% Moderate-Income $268,022 $40,203 $33.50 $56,299 $46.92 [1] Calculcated as subsidy per affordable unit multiplied by percent requirement for each income level. [2] Based on protoype unit sizes.
2023 In-Lieu Fee
$51,450
$22,265
$46.77
$24.74$30,143 $33.49Multifamily Apartment
Multifamily Attached Condo 15% Moderate-Income $360,950 On-Site
Requirement
Subsidy per
Affordable
Unit
2024 In-Lieu Fee
Multifamily Apartment $50,634 $46.03

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 10

FEASIBILITY THRESHOLDS UNDER IHO
Item On-Site Build Calculated In-Lieu Fee
Citywide Prototypes
Multifamily Apartment
Yield on Cost 5.5% 3.9% 3.8% 3.6%
Multifamily Attached Condo
Profit Margin 15% 20.8% 11.3% 11.2%
Single Family Attached Townhome
Profit Margin 15% 53.0% 40.7% 43.5%
Mixed-Use Prototypes
Multifamily Apartment
Yield on Cost 5.5% 4.9% 4.7% 4.6%
Multifamily Attached Condo
Profit Margin 15% 38.6% 27.7% 29.1%
Feasibility
Threshold Current Program FeasibilityMarket Rate
(No Inclusionary)
Key
Feasible
Infeas
ible

APPENDIX

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 12

COMPARING PROTOTYPES - CITYWIDE
Item 2023 Analysis 2024 Analysis
Multifamily Apartment - High Density
Development Costs per Unit
Land Acquisition and Site Improvements $141,000 $191,000 Direct Development Costs $440,000 $353,000
Indirect Development Costs $110,000 $88,000
Total Cost per Unit $692,000 $632,000
Market Conditions
Monthly Market Rent $2,800 $2,900
Multifamily Attached Condo
Development Costs per Unit
Land Acquisition and Site Improvements $141,000 $191,000 Direct Development Costs $425,000 $350,000
Indirect Development Costs $106,000 $88,000
Total Cost per Unit $673,000 $629,000
Market Conditions
Sales Price $674,000 $760,000
Single Family Attached Townhome
Development Costs per Unit
Land Acquisition and Site Improvements $212,000 $287,000 Direct Development Costs $225,000 $225,000
Indirect Development Costs $56,000 $56,000
Total Cost per Unit $493,000 $568,000
Market Conditions
Sales Price $870,000 $870,000

Economic & Planning Systems Monterey Park IH Feasibility | 13 COMPARING PROTOTYPES – MIXED-USE
Item 2023 Analysis 2024 Analysis
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Us e
Downtown
Development Costs per Unit
Land Acquisition and Site Improvements $82,000 $111,000 Di
rect Development Costs $332,000 $320,000
Indirect Development Costs $83,000 $80,000
Total Cost per Unit $497,000 $511,000
Market Conditions
Rent $2,800 $2,900
Multifamily Attached Condo - Mixed
Use Downtown
Development Costs per Unit
Land Acquisition and Site Improvements $141,000 $111,000 Di
rect Development Costs $400,000 $350,000
Indirect Development Costs $100,000 $88,000
Total Cost per Unit $641,000 $548,000
Market Conditions
Sales Price $674,000 $760,000

Staff Report
January 15, 2025

ATTACHMENT 2
Development Feasibility Analysis and In-Lieu Fee
Calculation for Monterey Park Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance dated January 11, 2024

Final Report
Development Feasibility Analysis
and In-Lieu Fee Calculation for
Monterey Park Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance
Prepared for:

City of Monterey Park
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
Prepared by:

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

EPS #224027
January 11, 2024

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 1 Study Background ................................................................................................ 1 Overview of Feasibility Analysis .............................................................................. 2 Key Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................ 3

2. Market Context ......................................................................................... 4 Housing Need ...................................................................................................... 4 Real Estate Market Activity .................................................................................... 5

3. Development Feasibility Analysis ................................................................ 8 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 8 Assumptions ....................................................................................................... 8 Feasibility Analysis Findings ................................................................................. 21

4. In-Lieu Fee Calculation ............................................................................ 23

5. Strategic Considerations .......................................................................... 26

Appendices
Appendix A: Development Program and Cost Categories
Appendix B: In-Lieu Fees in Other California Jurisdictions

Tables and Figures
Table 1 RHNA for Monterey Park ........................................................................... 4 Table 2 Citywide Prototype Residential Products for Monterey Park ............................ 10 Table 3 Mixed-Use Prototype Residential Products for Monterey Park .......................... 10 Table 4 Citywide Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions ......................... 11 Table 5 Citywide For-Sale Condominium Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions .................. 12 Table 6 Citywide For-Sale Townhome Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions ...................... 13 Table 7 Mixed-Use Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions (with Less Parking) .......................................................................................................... 14 Table 8 Mixed-Use Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions (with More Parking) .......................................................................................................... 15 Table 9 Mixed-Use For-Sale Condominium Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions ................ 16 Table 10 Maximum Unit Values for Affordable Housing for Los Angeles County (2023) .... 19 Table 11 Feasibility of Market-Rate Product Prototypes in Monterey Park ...................... 22 Table 12 Financial Gap for Inclusionary Units .......................................................... 24 Table 13 Inclusionary Housing Program Equivalent In-Lieu Fees for Prototypes .............. 25 Table 14 Feasibility of Product Prototypes with Current Inclusionary Program in Monterey Park .................................................................................................... 26

Figure 1 Mixed-Use Land Designation Area ............................................................... 7 Figure 2 Housing Opportunity Sites in the Northeast Portion of Monterey Park ................ 7

Economic & Planning Systems
1 1. Introduction
Study Background
The City of Monterey Park (City) adopted an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (IHO) in August 2023 and it became effective in September 2023. Inclusionary housing ordinances require that new market-rate residential development projects include a certain percentage of housing units at rents or sale prices that are affordable to lower-income households. Per the City’s IHO, developers of new residential projects are required to provide 15 percent of the new units built as affordable to lower-income households. For rental developments, the 15 percent requirement consists of 9 percent of units affordable to households earning the Low-Income level for Los Angeles County and 6 percent of units affordable to households earning the Moderate Income level. For ownership developments, 15 percent of units are required to be affordable to households earning the Moderate Income level.
1 The IHO also includes an option for developers to pay a fee in-lieu of providing affordable units on-site as an alternative means of compliance.

Following adoption of the IHO, the City sought to study how the ordinance could impact the financial feasibility of new market-rate housing developments in the City. Additionally, the City wanted to consider a more standardized and transparent approach to the in-lieu fee formula included in the IHO. The current formula requires the developer to uniquely calculate the gap between the value of their project’s market-rate units and the value of the required affordable units, and leaves room for interpretation regarding the calculation of unit value, which can fluctuate on a variety of factors such as unit size, type, market conditions, and more.

Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was retained by the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG) on behalf of the City to conduct a feasibility analysis of the IHO and to calculate potential in-lieu fee levels that are consistent with the IHO’s on-site unit requirement. The feasibility analysis specifically tests whether new market-rate residential developments in the City can absorb the additional financial costs associated with the IHO requirements and still be financially feasible. While cities are generally not legally required to consider the financial impacts of an inclusionary housing requirement, the City has elected to study them to better inform its inclusionary housing policy and align the City’s overall housing goals with its local real estate market conditions. 2 1 Income levels are described in greater detail in Chapter 3 of this Report. 2 An exception to this statement is Assembly Bill (AB) 1505, which allows the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to request an economic feasibility study for inclusionary housing policies that include a requirement that more than 1 5 percent of total rental units developed be affordable to households earning 80 percent of area median income (AMI) or below.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
2 Overview of Feasibility Analysis
The financial feasibility of a development project is determined by comparing the cost of the project to its value (based on achievable sale prices or rents).

A financially feasible project is one in which the value provides a sufficient return on the investment to incentivize moving forward with the project. Given the range of investment opportunities available to developers and financial investors, a development project will not be built if it is not considered a financially feasible proposition. For the purposes of this study’s analysis, a “sufficient” return on investment was established using market-based standards that are relevant at the time of this analysis (further detailed in Chapter 3). However, what is considered a “sufficient” return for any individual project will vary depending on a range of considerations.

The impacts of inclusionary housing policies on the financial feasibility of market- rate housing projects can manifest in one of two ways:

1. On-site inclusionary affordable units typically cost the same to build as the market-rate units but are sold or rented at below-market rates; OR

2. Fees paid in-lieu of providing affordable units on-site add to the costs of a project, while the value of the project as reflected in market-rate rents or sale prices tends to stay the same.

The resulting decrease in project revenue or increase in development costs related to inclusionary policies will reduce the achievable return on investment for housing projects. At a certain level, the impacts of the policy may reduce the achievable return to the point that projects are financially infeasible, and developers will not move forward with building them. This study is intended to provide the City with additional context regarding the cost associated with its inclusionary requirement and whether it might render new residential development in the City extremely challenging or even completely financially infeasible. This context is important given that the production of affordable units through an inclusionary housing policy can only happen through the development of larger market-rate projects.

Economic & Planning Systems
3 Key Findings and Recommendations
The key findings and recommendations stemming from the feasibility analysis for inclusionary housing in Monterey Park are summarized below. It is important to note that the analysis is a point-in-time assessment of typical new market-rate development projects completed in late 2023. The findings are not deterministic of all development feasibility in the City, as there are many variables that can impact costs and values and resulting feasibility of any individual project.

Similarly, future market conditions can also change the financial forces impacting real estate development generally and inclusionary housing programs specifically.

1. Higher-density owner- and renter-occupied residential projects appear financially challenging to build in the City, while lower-density owner-occupied projects appear financially feasible. The feasibility analysis indicates that the development of higher density residential products, such as multifamily owner-occupied condominiums and renter-occupied apartments, appear financially infeasible even at market rates. By contrast, lower density residential products such as owner-occupied attached townhomes appears to be feasible at market rates, and demonstrate sufficient development feasibility to absorb the additional impact of an inclusionary requirement.

2. The zoning allowances under the City’s Mixed-Use (MU) zoning designation may improve the financial feasibility of residential projects. Residential projects in the MU zoned areas of the City generate a higher return on investment than development in other parts of the City due to the MU zone’s unlimited density allowances and lower parking requirements. However, in order for future projects in the MU zone to support the additional cost of inclusionary units, they would likely need to achieve even higher densities and lower parking ratios than the MU pipeline projects currently proposed.

3. The City’s current inclusionary housing requirements will likely be financially challenging for new residential development projects under current market conditions. This challenge is particularly seen for multifamily residential rental and ownership projects, which are facing other financial challenges related to development costs and achievable market rates. Chapter 5 of this report outlines a number of options the City may consider to improve the efficacy of the IHO in developing affordable units in the community while also supporting new residential development overall.

The subsequent chapters of this report detail on the methodology, key assumptions, and results of the feasibility analysis, as well as the calculation of an in-lieu fee aligned with the City’s current IHO requirements.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
4 2. Market Context
Housing Need
The State of California requires every jurisdiction to adequately plan for its community’s housing needs, as specified by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA. The RHNA breaks down the amount of housing units needed in each jurisdiction by income category, ranging from Extremely-Low Income to Above Moderate Income. The definitions of the State’s income categories for Los Angeles County are provided in more detail in Chapter 3 of this report.

Currently, jurisdictions within the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) area, which includes Los Angeles County, have adopted or are working towards adopting their 6
th Cycle (2021 through 2029) Housing Elements, which
contain policies and strategies required to meet current RHNA numbers. The City of Monterey Park’s 6th Cycle Housing Element was certified as of March 30, 2023.

Monterey Park has a RHNA of 5,257 total units for the 2021-2029 period, representing a nearly 25 percent increase to the City’s existing housing inventory.

Table 1 displays the City’s RHNA breakdown by income levels.

Table 1 RHNA for Monterey Park

Since the City’s RHNA targets include housing at a range of income levels, it is important to adopt policies that both advance affordable housing opportunities and support the development of new market-rate housing.

Affordablility Category Units Percentage
Extremely Low Income 653 12.4%
Very Low Income 671 12.8%
Low Income 822 15.6%
Moderate Income 848 16.1%
Above Moderate 2,263 43.0%
Total 5,257 100.0%
Source: HCD; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Economic & Planning Systems
5 Real Estate Market Activity
To evaluate the impacts of Monterey Park’s inclusionary program on future residential development, EPS first sought to answer the following questions:
(1) Is market-rate development occurring in Monterey Park? (2) What are the market-rate rents and sales prices of new development? These questions are critical, as an inclusionary program is only effective if new market-rate residential development is occurring and can achieve prices or rents that can support the additional costs of including affordable units. In order to understand the local development landscape and the extent of new residential development activity in the City and subregion, EPS researched several key local residential market activity indicators, utilizing a variety of data sources including the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Annual Progress Reports (APRs), CoStar, Redfin, and City input. 3 In addition, EPS
reviewed the City’s new development capacity as detailed in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, to understand zoning or plans that could accommodate new residential developments in the future.

To the greatest extent possible and to maximize transparency, EPS aimed to use publicly-available data, such as information collected and posted by HCD, the US Census, and local planning documents and zoning codes. EPS additionally vetted and confirmed assumptions through discussions with City planning staff and residential developers active in the City (as identified by City staff) and the larger San Gabriel Valley subregion.

Housing Affordability
Households in the City of Monterey Park have a median annual income of $68,497 and an average household size of 3.0 people per household. According to the 2023 State Income Limits for Los Angeles County, a three-person household with earnings of nearly $69,000 (i.e., the “typical” household in Monterey Park) would be considered a Low-Income household.

Based on standard thresholds for housing affordability, a household earning median income in the City can afford a home price of approximately $410,000 4 or
a monthly rent of approximately $1,700.5 As of mid-2023, the median sales price

3 CoStar reports rents for multifamily housing units based on data provided by property management companies. Redfin reports sale prices for sold housing units based on publicly - available data, such as MLS and County Assessor records . 4 Assumes that no more than 35 percent of an owner -occupied household's income is spent on housing costs, and that the house is purchased with 30-year mortgage with a fixed 5 percent interest rate and a 10 percent downpayment.
5 Assumes that no more than 30 percent of a renter -occupied household's income should be spent on housing costs.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
6 in the City for a detached single-family home is approximately $930,000, while the median apartment rent across the San Gabriel Valley is approximately $2,700 per month.6 Given these price points, the “typical” household in Monterey Park could not afford the “typical” single-family for-sale home or multifamily rental apartment in the City and subregion.

Future Development Trends
There has been limited new market-rate development in Monterey Park in the past several years. However, there are several large multifamily projects in the development pipeline and the Housing Element identifies significant new capacity in the Mixed-Use (MU) areas in the City’s downtown corridor. These trends are summarized below.

Single-Family Housing
In 2022, thirteen attached townhome units and two single-family detached units were completed within the City.

Multifamily Housing
In 2022, 87 multifamily units were completed within the City, the majority of which were part of a single project. In addition, there are ten residential projects that would yield approximately 700 units currently in the City’s pipeline, with project completion statuses ranging from “Conceptual” to “Under Construction”.

These projects include owner-occupied condominium units and renter-occupied apartment units.

Development Capacity Potential
The Housing Element anticipates most of its new residential development capacity will be in the City’s northeast area, which contains the Mixed-Use zoned areas.

The purple portions in Figure 1 illustrate the downtown Mixed-Use zoned areas within the City. Figure 2 from the City’s Housing Element further illustrates that the majority of housing opportunity sites in the City (shown in orange) are in the northeast area.

6 EPS utilized the subregional median rent given the limited inventory of new multifamily rental apartments in the City.

Economic & Planning Systems
7 Figure 1 Mixed-Use Land Designation Area

Figure 2 Housing Opportunity Sites in the Northeast Portion of Monterey Park

Source: City of Monterey Park Land Use and Urban Design Element 2040 Source: City of Monterey Park Housing Element 2021-2029

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
8 3. Development Feasibility Analysis
The development feasibility analysis detailed in this study tests whether new market-rate residential development in the City can absorb the financial impact of an inclusionary housing requirement. This assessment reflects that building affordable housing units represents a cost to market-rate housing projects, and it is possible that the additional cost will cause the project to be financially infeasible.

Methodology
To support an inclusionary requirement, a development project must demonstrate feasibility in excess of a feasibility “threshold,” described in more detail below.

Based on this criterion, the feasibility analysis is intended to demonstrate if an inclusionary housing program is an appropriate tool to adopt at this time given market conditions, and, if so, identify inclusionary requirements that could be feasibly absorbed by different types of new market-rate projects in the City. The analysis utilizes information on market rents and sale prices in the City, affordable rents and sale prices in the region, and development costs for new residential units in the region. The analysis reflects costs and values of newly constructed housing units since the IHO only applies to new development projects.

Assumptions
Product Prototypes
The feasibility analysis was conducted on a series of prototype residential products intended to reflect the types of new residential development projects expected to occur in the City in the coming years. The prototypes were informed by EPS research on the local housing market, which included review of recent developments and proposed projects, discussions with developers active in the City and subregion, input from City staff, and City zoning regulations.

The analyzed prototypes include three Citywide prototypes, reflecting residential zoning designations across the City; and three MU Zone prototypes reflecting the City’s MU zoning designation. Prototypes for the MU Zone are considered separately as the MU designation provides zoning allowances distinct from other residential zones in the City. Specifically, there is no limit on density for projects in the MU Zone. Additionally, many of the properties located in the MU Zone meet the requirements of California law, which allows a developer to provide fewer parking spaces than required by the City standards if the development is constructed within ½ miles of a major transit hub. Since the MU Zone is expected to absorb a significant amount of future residential development in the City, it is

Economic & Planning Systems
9 particularly important to understand the impact of the IHO on future projects in the MU Zone area.

The Citywide prototypes include one rental prototype – multifamily apartments – and two for-sale prototypes – multifamily condominiums and attached townhomes. The critical differentiator between the two for-sale prototypes is the density at which they are built, with the “condominium” product assumed to be built at a density of 30 units per acre and the “townhome” product assumed to be built at a density of 20 units per acre. These densities align with zoning regulations for the City’s R-2 and R-3 zones, and the associated product types are based on how units at those densities can fit on a site. Given these densities, it is assumed that the condominium units would be contained within a single multi- story building, while the townhome units would be built as distinct units, each with its own ground-floor entrance (although likely with shared walls). The analysis also assumes that the prototypical condominium units are smaller than the prototypical townhome unit. While there may be additional factors – such as how the lot is subdivided – that the City uses to define a project as a condominium or townhome, this analysis does not account for those types of factors and only differentiates the prototypes based on density and unit size.

The Mixed-Use prototypes include two rental multifamily apartment prototypes and one for-sale multifamily condominium prototype. These products reflect characteristics of pipeline projects currently seen in the MU Zone. The difference between the two rental prototypes is the parking ratios, with one prototype assuming 2 spaces per unit and the other prototype assuming 1.5 spaces per unit.

The two rental prototypes were developed per guidance from staff in the City’s Community Development Department to reflect the range of parking ratios anticipated in pipeline and future projects. The Mixed-Use for-sale multifamily condominium prototype (for both market-rate and affordable units) also reflects a lower parking ratio of 2 spaces per unit as compared to the corresponding Citywide prototype, which assumes a parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per unit. 7 The unit characteristics for each prototype are meant to represent average unit sizes, with the resulting analysis demonstrating feasibility for an average residential project. The findings of this analysis assume that the unique unit mix of any particular project will, in aggregate, conform to these average unit sizes.

However, any specific project will have its own cost and revenue factors that may be impacted in part by its unit mix. Additionally, this analysis does not include a detached single-family home prototype, as the City anticipates limited future development of this product type.

7 The use of a 2-space per unit parking ratio reflects the fact that while projects in the MU Zone will not be required to provide a minimum number of parking spaces per State law, developers will likely still provide some amount of parking to meet market expectations and demand.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
10 The characteristics of each Citywide development prototype are summarized in Table 2 and characteristics of each Mixed-Use development prototype are summarized in Table 3.

Table 2 Citywide Prototype Residential Products for Monterey Park

Table 3 Mixed-Use Prototype Residential Products for Monterey Park

Development Cost Assumptions
Development cost categories include land acquisition, site preparation, hard costs (e.g., construction labor and materials), and indirect or “soft” costs (e.g., architecture/engineering, entitlement, financing, marketing). Appendix A provides additional detail about what elements are included in each development Item
Tenure Ownership Ow nership Rental
Building Type Attached Multifamily Multifamily
Density (units/acre) 20 units/acre 30 units/acre 30 units/acre Unit Square Feet 1800 sq. ft. 1200 sq. ft. 1100 sq. ft.

Unit Bedrooms 3 per unit 2 per unit 2 per unit
Parking Spaces 2 per unit 2.5 per unit 2.5 per unit
Parking Type Attached Garage Podium Podium
Source: City of Monterey Park; Costar; EPS
Multifamily Rental -
High Density
Multifamily
Condominium
Single Family
Attached Townhome
Item More Parking Le ss Pa rking
Tenure Ownership Rent al Rental
Building Type Multifamily Multifamily Multifamily
Density (units/acre) 30 units/acre 70 units/acre 70 units/acre Unit Square Feet 1200 sq. ft. 900 sq. ft. 900 sq. ft.

Unit Bedrooms 2 per unit 2 per unit 2 per unit
Parking Spaces 2 per unit 2 per unit 1.5 per unit
Parking Type Podium Podium Podium
Source: City of Monterey Park; Costar; EPS
Multifamily
Condominium
Multifamily Rental

Economic & Planning Systems
11 cost category. For the multifamily prototypes that include structured/podium parking, EPS identifies parking costs as a separate line item and assumes the parking is built as one or two above-grade levels of parking below the residential levels. Data from recent developments and land transactions in the City have been combined with information from interviews with developers who are active in the region to inform the development cost assumptions used in the analysis.

Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6 below detail the cost assumptions and estimated costs per unit for the apartment, condominium, and townhome prototypes, respectively, under the Citywide zoning designation, while Table 7, Table 8, and Table 9 detail the assumption and estimated costs per unit for the apartment and condominium prototypes under the MU zoning designation. As shown, the estimated development costs for multifamily units are approximately $670,000 to $690,000 per unit under Citywide zoning designations, and $500,000 to $640,000 per unit under the Mixed-Use zoning designation. The estimated development cost for townhome units is approximately $490,000 per unit.

Table 4 Citywide Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure Rental
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 30 units/acre
Unit Size 1,100 sq.ft.

Amount of Parking 2.5 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $2,500,000 per acre $83,333
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $58,080
Subtotal, Land $141,413
Direct Construction Costs $275 per sq.ft. $302,500
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $125,000
Builder Fee 3.0% of direct costs, incl. parking $12,825 Subtotal, Direct Costs $440,325
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $110,081
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $110,081
Total Development Costs $691,820
Multifamily Apartment - High Density
Assumptions

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
12 Table 5 Citywide For-Sale Condominium Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure Ownership
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 30 units/acre
Unit Size 1,200 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 2.0 per unit
Amount of Parking 2.5 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $2,500,000 per acre $83,333
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $58,080
Subtotal, Land $141,413
Direct Construction Costs $250 per sq.ft. $300,000
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $125,000
Subtotal, Direct Costs $425,000
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $106,250
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $106,250
Total Construction Costs $672,663
Multifamily Attached Condo
Assumptions

Economic & Planning Systems
13 Table 6 Citywide For-Sale Townhome Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
De
velopment Prototype
Tenure Ownership
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 20 units/acre
Unit Size 1,800 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 3.0 per unit
Amount of Parking 2.0 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $2,500,000 per acre $125,000
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $87,120
Subtotal, Land $212,120
Direct Construction Costs $125 per bldg. sq.ft. $225,000 Parking Costs $0 per space $0
Subtotal, Direct Costs $225,000
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $56,250
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $56,250
Total Construction Costs $493,370
Single Family Attached Townhome
Assumptions

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
14 Table 7 Mixed-Use Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions (with Less Parking)

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure Rental
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 70 units/acre
Unit Size 900 sq.ft.

Amount of Parking 1.5 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,000,000 per acre $57,143
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $24,891
Subtotal, Land $82,034
Direct Construction Costs $275 per sq.ft. $247,500
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $75,000
Builder Fee 3.0% of direct costs, incl. parking $9,675
Subtotal, Direct Costs $332,175
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $83,044
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $83,044
Total Development Costs $497,253
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use Downtown
Assumptions

Economic & Planning Systems
15 Table 8 Mixed-Use Rental Apartment Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions (with More Parking)

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure Rental
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 70 units/acre
Unit Size 900 sq.ft.

Amount of Parking 2.0 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $4,000,000 per acre $57,143
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $24,891
Subtotal, Land $82,034
Direct Construction Costs $275 per sq.ft. $247,500
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $100,000
Builder Fee 3.0% of direct costs, incl. parking $10,425 Subtotal, Direct Costs $357,925
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $89,481
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $89,481
Total Development Costs $529,441
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use Downtown
Assumptions

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
16 Table 9 Mixed-Use For-Sale Condominium Prototype Unit Cost Assumptions

Item Per Unit
Development Prototype
Tenure Ownership
Parcel Size 1 acre
Density 30 units/acre
Unit Size 1,200 sq.ft.

Number of Bedrooms 2.0 per unit
Amount of Parking 2.0 per unit
Development Costs
Land Costs $2,500,000 per acre $83,333
Site Preparation $40 per sq.ft. of land $58,080
Subtotal, Land $141,413
Direct Construction Costs $250 per sq.ft. $300,000
Parking Costs $50,000 per space, podium $100,000
Subtotal, Direct Costs $400,000
Indirect Costs 25% of direct costs $100,000
Subtotal, Indirect Costs $100,000
Total Construction Costs $641,413
Multifamily Attached Condo
Assumptions

Economic & Planning Systems
17 Value Assumptions
Market-Rate Residential Values
The value for market-rate rental apartments is based on annual net operating income (NOI), which is calculated as annual rent minus annual operating expenses. For the apartment prototypes in Monterey Park, annual rent is assumed at $33,420 per unit (equivalent to $2,785 per month), and annual operating expenses are assumed at $10,000 per unit. This rental rate reflects market rents for newly constructed apartment projects in the San Gabriel Valley subregion.

For the market-rate for-sale prototypes, the value of the unit is equal to the estimated sale price. The assumed price points for new for-sale products in Monterey Park are $674,000 for a condominium unit and $870,000 for a townhome unit. These price points reflect expectations for newly constructed units, which are assumed to achieve higher prices than the overall existing inventory. For this analysis, EPS applied a premium of 40 percent over existing inventory values to estimate projected prices for new units, based on sales trend data for the San Gabriel Valley subregion.

Affordable Residential Values
Affordable rents and sale prices for inclusionary units are based on maximum housing costs affordable to households at various household income levels.

Income levels for households in Los Angeles County are set by California law on an annual basis. The income level for each category differs by household size.

This analysis assumes a two-bedroom unit is occupied by a three-person household and a three-bedroom unit is occupied by a four-person household.8 For 2023, the Area Median Income (AMI) in Los Angeles County is defined as $88,400 for a household of three and $98,200 for a household of four.

In general, Very Low-Income households are defined as those earning up to 50 percent of AMI; Low-Income households earn up to 80 percent AMI; and Moderate-Income households earn up to 120 percent of AMI. However, within Los Angeles County, the maximum income defining Very Low- and Low-Income households is adjusted upwards from the associated percentage of AMI. This adjustment occurs in counties with relatively high housing costs and/or relatively high or low household incomes. Due to this adjustment, the maximum income for a Low-Income household—$90,850 for a three-person household and $100,900 for a four-person household—is actually higher than the area median income.

8 Based on California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
18 Based on the maximum household income for each income category, EPS calculated the maximum spending towards housing costs that would be considered affordable. The analysis assumes that households in affordable units spend no more than 30 percent of their gross annual income on total housing costs. For the purposes of this analysis, housing costs for rental units include rent only, while housing costs for for-sale units include mortgage and interest payments, insurance, property taxes, and Homeowners Association (HOA) fees.

To calculate the maximum affordable sale price for for-sale units, EPS assumed that insurance, property taxes, and Homeowners Association (HOA) fees represent approximately 10 percent of household income, and therefore the maximum income available for a mortgage payment is 20 percent of annual household income. This mortgage payment was converted into an affordable home sale price assuming a 10 percent down payment and a 30-year mortgage with a fixed interest rate of 5 percent, reflecting a long-term, historical average.

The affordable values remain consistent across Citywide and Mixed-Use prototype products as they are based on County income limits rather than the programmatic characteristics of the prototype unit. Table 10 indicates the maximum annual incomes for households associated with each income category in Los Angeles Category for the associated household size, as well as the affordable rents and sale prices associated with each category.

Economic & Planning Systems
19 Table 10 Maximum Unit Values for Affordable Housing for Los Angeles County (2023)

Item
Very Low
Income
(50% AMI)
Low
Income
(80% AMI)
Moderate
Income
(120% AMI)
Multifamily Apartment
Maximum Household Income [1] $56,750 $90,850 $106,050
Income Available for Housing Costs/Year [2] $13,887 $24,117 $28,677 Supportable Rent/Month $1,157 $2,010 $2,390
(less) Operating Expenses per Unit/Year [3] ($7,500) ($7,500) ($10,000) Annual Net Operating Income $6,387 $16,617 $18,677
Capitalization Rate [4] 5% 5% 5%
Unit Value [5] $127,740 $332,340 $373,540
Multifamily Attached Condo
Household Income [1] $56,750 $90,850 $106,050
Income Available for Housing Costs/Year [6] $11,350 $18,170 $21,210 Supportable Mortgage [7] $174,477 $279,317 $326,050
Supportable Home Price [8] $193,900 $310,400 $362,300
Single Family Attached Townhome
Household Income [1] $63,050 $100,900 $117,850
Income Available for Housing Costs/Year [6] $12,610 $20,180 $23,570 Supportable Mortgage [7] $193,847 $310,216 $362,329
Affordable Home Price [8] $215,400 $344,700 $402,600
Sources: City of Monterey Park; HCD; CoStar; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. [7] Assumes a 30-year mortgage and a fixed 5% interest rate. [8] Assumes a 10% down payment.
[1] Reflects 2023 HCD Income Limits for a three-person household for apartments and condominiums, and a four- person household for townhomes.
[2] Assumes that no more than 30% of a household's income should be spent on housing costs for housing to be considered affordable. This number represents the affordable annual rent. [3] Operating expenses are generally based on EPS feasibility studies in the region and are inclusive of utility costs; units at or below 80% of AMI are assumed to be built as non-profit and are therefore exempt from property taxes.

Property taxes are assumed to comprise a share of the operating expenses for the moderate income category. [4] The capitalization rate is used to determine the current value of a property based on estimated future operating income, and is typically a measure of estimated operating risk. Obtained for multifamily developments in Monterey Park and the surrounding region from CoStar.
[5] The unit value is determined by dividing the net operating income by the capitalization rate. [6] Assumes that no more than 20% of household income is spent on mortgage payments. This reflects that total housing costs should not exceed 30% of income, and takes into account other housing-related costs, such as taxes, insurance, and HOA fees.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
20 Feasibility Thresholds
The assessment of financial feasibility for real estate development products is based on calculating financial return metrics for the products and comparing them against typical industry target thresholds. In the case of residential development, relevant return metrics are based on comparing total project revenues to total project development costs, as follows:
• For for-sale market-rate housing prototypes, which in this analysis includes condominiums and townhomes, the estimated cost of development (shown in Table 5, Table 6, and Table 9) is subtracted from the estimated value, or sale price, in order to calculate profit. The profit is then divided by the estimated development cost to calculate the relevant feasibility metric, profit margin, which is the percentage by which total project value exceeds total project cost. Based on EPS research and feedback from the developer community, the analysis assumes that developers in the greater Los Angeles region will require a projected profit margin of at least 15 percent to move forward with a for-sale development project. Therefore, a prototype attaining a profit margin at or above 15 percent at market sale prices would be considered feasible in this analysis. A profit margin in excess of 15 percent would be required to support any additional costs, such as an inclusionary requirement.

• For rental market-rate housing prototypes, which in this analysis includes multifamily apartments, the feasibility threshold is based on the return metric of “yield on cost,” which is calculated by dividing the annual net operating income (NOI) by the total costs of development.
9 Based on EPS research and
experience, the analysis assumes that developers in the greater Los Angeles region will require a projected yield on cost of at least 5.5 percent in order to move forward with a multifamily rental development project. A yield-on-cost in excess of 5.5 percent would be required to support any additional costs, such as an inclusionary requirement.

It is important to note that these return metrics do not account for the time value of money and are not based on any assumption regarding project timeline.

9 Net operating income reflects total rent collected minus operating costs.

Economic & Planning Systems
21 Feasibility Analysis Findings
EPS assumptions for prototype revenues and costs detailed above were used to calculate the relevant return metrics for each prototype category at market rates (without the current inclusionary requirements). The calculated return metrics for each prototype are detailed below in Table 11.

As shown, the analysis indicates that only the townhome prototype both meets feasibility thresholds at market rates and demonstrates sufficient feasibility to support the additional costs of an inclusionary requirement. None of the multifamily prototypes achieve feasible return thresholds at market rates, although the Mixed-Use prototypes’ higher densities and lower parking ratios increase revenue and lower development cost, and are therefore estimated to generate higher returns as compared to their Citywide counterparts. Overall, the estimated returns for the multifamily prototypes suggest that, on average, it is challenging to develop these project types in the City under current market conditions. The additional costs of an inclusionary requirement would exacerbate those challenges and potentially limit the opportunities for new housing development in the community.

It is important to note that this analysis only reflects average prototypical projects and does not mean that the prototypes shown as infeasible above will never be built in the City. There are many factors that can impact the financial feasibility of any particular development project. For example, if a project can acquire land at a lower price or build at a higher density than what is represented in the above assumptions, the project may become financially feasible. Similarly, a developer may find that there is sufficient demand to achieve rents or sale prices higher than those assumed in this analysis. Indeed, the City may find that even though this analysis shows specific types of development to be infeasible at market rates, they still receive proposals to build these types of projects. Therefore, as stated previously in this report, the analysis should not be considered deterministic regarding the future of housing development in the City. Rather, it should be taken as informative regarding the obstacles to housing development under current average market conditions, and how inclusionary housing requirements might therefore impact the feasibility of the average project.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
22 Table 11 Feasibility of Market-Rate Product Prototypes in Monterey Park

Item
Feasibility
Threshold Re sults
Multifamily Apartment - High Density
Development Costs Per Unit $692,000
Net Operating Income Per Unit $23,000
Yield on Cost 5.5% 3.4%
Multifamily Attached Condo
Development Costs Per Unit $673,000
Average Sale Price $674,000
Profit $1,000
Profit Margin 15% 0.1%
Single Family Attached Townhome
Development Costs Per Unit $493,000
Average Sale Price $870,000
Profit $377,000
Profit Margin 15% 76.3%
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Us e
Downtown (Less Parking)
Development Costs Per Unit $497,000
Net Operating Income Per Unit $23,000
Yield on Cost 5.5% 4.7%
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Us e
Downtown (More Parking)
Development Costs Per Unit $529,000
Net Operating Income Per Unit $23,000
Yield on Cost 5.5% 4.4%
Multifamily Attached Condo -
Mixed Use Downtown
Development Costs Per Unit $641,000
Average Sale Price $674,000
Profit $33,000
Profit Margin 15% 5.0%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Key
Feasible
Infeasible

Economic & Planning Systems
23 4. In-Lieu Fee Calculation
In addition to evaluating the impacts of the City’s IHO on development feasibility, EPS was scoped to calculate an in-lieu fee that developers might pay instead of providing affordable units on-site. The City adopted a resolution in September 2023 regarding calculation of the in-lieu fee, which called for the fee to equal “the difference between the market rate price and the defined affordable price… associated with each income restricted unit required to be produced.”10 While this is one possible approach for calculating an in-lieu fee, EPS recommends an alternative approach that would still reflect the City’s goal to establish a fee that reflects “the financial impact or ‘affordability gap’ that is created by the IHO,” and is commonly used in other jurisdictions across the State. 11 In EPS’s recommended approach, the in-lieu fee is set to equal (as closely as possible) the cost that developers incur in providing on-site affordable units. This cost manifests as a “financial gap” associated with inclusionary units, calculated as the cost of developing the inclusionary unit (which is the same as the cost to build a market-rate unit) minus the inclusionary unit’s value based on maximum affordable rents or sales prices. The in-lieu fee per required affordable unit would be based on that financial gap.

Using the financial gap approach described above, EPS calculated the financial gap for each modeled prototype unit at values associated with Low- and Moderate-Income affordability levels. The calculation utilizes the development costs detailed in Table 4 through Table 9 and affordable rents and sale prices detailed in Table 10. These gaps are shown in Table 12 below.

10 Resolution No. 2023-R74 – Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee 11 Ibid.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
24 Table 12 Financial Gap for Inclusionary Units

Item
Low
Income
(80% AMI)
Moderate
Income
(120% AMI)
Multifamily Apartment - High Density
Development Costs Per Unit $692,000 $692,000
Development Value Per Unit $332,000 $374,000
Financial Gap ($359,000) ($318,000)
Multifamily Attached Condo
Development Costs Per Unit $774,000 $774,000
Development Value Per Unit $310,000 $362,000
Financial Gap ($463,000) ($411,000)
Single Family Attached Townhome
Development Costs Per Unit $567,000 $567,000
Development Value Per Unit $345,000 $403,000
Financial Gap ($223,000) ($165,000)
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use
Downtown (Less Parking)
Development Costs Per Unit $497,000 $497,000
Development Value Per Unit $332,000 $374,000
Financial Gap ($165,000) ($124,000)
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use
Downtown (More Parking)
Development Costs Per Unit $529,000 $529,000
Development Value Per Unit $332,000 $374,000
Financial Gap ($197,000) ($156,000)
Multifamily Attached Condo - Mixed
Use Downtown
Development Costs Per Unit $738,000 $738,000
Development Value Per Unit $310,000 $362,000
Financial Gap ($427,000) ($375,000)
Source: Economic & Planning Systems

Economic & Planning Systems
25 The financial gaps were then converted into a fee per market-rate square foot of a project, which is a standard basis for levying such fees. The fees per market-rate square foot are shown in Table 13. As shown, the fees for different prototypes range widely, aligned with the range of costs (and resulting financial gaps) associated with different prototype products.

Table 13 Inclusionary Housing Program Equivalent In- Lieu Fees for Prototypes

For additional context, EPS has gathered information on in-lieu fee levels in several jurisdictions throughout the State, included in Appendix B. It is worth noting that while the approach of aligning the cost of the in-lieu fee with the cost of providing on-site units is considered the best practice, some cities make a policy decision to incentivize the production of on-site units over payment of the in-lieu fee (or vice versa). In these circumstances, a city’s on-site requirement and the associated in-lieu fee may be intentionally different from a development cost perspective.

Item On-Site Requirement
In-Lieu Fee Per Market
Rate Sq. Ft.

Multifamily Apartment - High Density 9% Low-Income;
6% Moderate-Income $46.77
Multifamily Attached Condo 15% Moderate-Income $51.41
Single Family Attached Townhome 15% Moderate-Income $13.73 Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use Downtown
(Less Parking)
9% Low-Income;
6% Moderate-Income $24.74
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Use Downtown
(More Parking)
9% Low-Income;
6% Moderate-Income $30.10
Multifamily Attached Condo - Mixed Use
Downtown 15% Moderate-Income $46.92
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
26 5. Strategic Considerations
Based on the above analysis, EPS finds that the costs of Monterey Park’s current inclusionary housing requirements will likely be challenging on average for new market-rate residential development projects, particularly multifamily rental and ownership projects, to absorb under current market conditions. As summarized in Table 14, most of the modeled prototypes do not achieve the thresholds for feasibility at market rates, and the addition of the on-site inclusionary requirements and associated in-lieu fee move the prototypes even further away from achieving these thresholds. Only the for-sale attached townhome prototype demonstrates sufficient feasibility to support the City’s current inclusionary housing requirements. The table also demonstrates that while zoning allowance in the MU Zone may improve development feasibility, future projects will likely have to achieve higher densities and lower parking ratios than currently observed in the pipeline projects in order to feasibly support inclusionary requirements.

Table 14 Feasibility of Product Prototypes with Current Inclusionary Program in Monterey Park

Item On-Site Build Calculated In-Lieu Fee
Multifamily Apartment - High Density
Yield on Cost 5.5% 3.4% 3.3% 3.2%
Multifamily Attached Condo
Profit Margin 15% 0.1% -6.8% -8.3%
Single Family Attached Townhome
Profit Margin 15% 76.3% 62.1% 67.9%
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Us e
Downtown (Less Parking)
Yield on Cost 5.5% 4.7% 4.5% 4.5%
Multifamily Apartment - Mixed Us e
Downtown (More Parking)
Yield on Cost 5.5% 4.4% 4.3% 4.2%
Multifamily Attached Condo - Mixed
Use Downtown
Profit Margin 15% 5.0% -2.3% -3.5%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.

Feasibility
Threshold Current Program FeasibilityMarket Rate
(No Inclusionary)

Economic & Planning Systems
27 Given these findings, EPS has outlined several strategies for the City to consider regarding the immediate and long-term future of the IHO. These strategies can help the City balance its affordable housing objectives with current market and development feasibility conditions. These strategies are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and the City may decide to pursue them in combination.

1. Temporarily pause the inclusionary housing requirement. The City may consider a pause in enforcement of the IHO until there is more market evidence that the development economics of residential development, particularly multifamily development, are improving. The City can continue to monitor several metrics in this regard, including developer interest and applications, residential production trends, development costs, and market prices/rents in the City. A reasonable timeframe for monitoring changing real estate and financial markets conditions would be one to two years. When early indicators, such as increased developer interest and multifamily rents, suggest improving market conditions, the City may then reevaluate the feasibility of its inclusionary program. While it would be a “best practice” to conduct another feasibility study at that time, the law does not require it.

2. Phase-in the IHO requirements. It can take some time for the market to respond to new inclusionary requirements and for developers to figure out how to adjust their development programs to maintain feasibility. Sometimes phasing in inclusionary requirements is a way for a jurisdiction to signal to the development community what is coming while allowing projects already in early planning stages to respond.

A phase-in approach has been used in several jurisdictions, including in the cities of Long Beach and San Jose, as described below:
- The City of Long Beach phased in its inclusionary requirements over a three- year period, starting in 2021. Ownership projects that submitted their application for first approval in the first year were required to include 4 percent of units as affordable to Moderate-Income households. Those applying in the second year had to include 5 percent of units as affordable, and those applying in the third year had to include 10 percent of units as affordable.

Similarly, for rental projects, applicants in the first year had to include 5 percent of units as affordable to Very-Low Income households, with the requirements increasing to 6 percent and then 11 percent for applicants in the second and third years. The City’s in-lieu fee levels were similarly phased in. - In San Jose, the City adopted its inclusionary housing ordinance in early 2010 but delayed implementation until 2013. The City also added a market- based “trigger” to allow for earlier implementation if the housing market picked up more quickly than expected. Specifically, the ordinance could go into effect if at least 2,500 building permits were issued within a 12-month consecutive period.

City of Monterey Park
Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Evaluation
28 3. Adjust the housing requirements so that the complying projects automatically qualify for the State Density Bonus (SDB). As written, the City’s inclusionary requirement for for-sale projects qualifies developers for a 10 percent density bonus through the SDB. For rental projects, the City’s current inclusionary requirements do not automatically align with requirements for using the SDB. However, if the City increases the current requirement of 9 percent of units for Low Income households to 10 percent of units, projects would automatically qualify for a 20 percent density bonus. The City could potentially eliminate the requirement for Moderate-Income housing on rental to offset the cost of the additional Low-Income requirement. While this adjustment to the rental inclusionary requirements may not completely resolve feasibility concerns under current market conditions, the additional density and other regulatory waivers and concessions allowed under the SDB have economic value and can improve the feasibility of a residential project.

4. Consider adopting an in-lieu fee that is lower than the equivalent subsidy of providing units on-site. This would lessen the cost burden on developers while still generating revenue for City to use specifically for affordable housing initiatives and opportunities. Some examples of cities that have implemented such a strategy include Jurupa Valley and San Clemente.

In taking this approach, the City should anticipate that most developers will choose to pay the in-lieu fee. However, even under this approach, some developers may still choose to build affordable units on-site anyway to qualify for the extra density and the waivers/concessions available under the SDB, which may be even more valuable to their project.

If the City does take this approach, it may still only be helpful to the developers of attached townhome projects under current market conditions.

Given the feasibility challenges demonstrated for multifamily development at market rates, even an in-lieu fee that is set below the equivalent cost of the on-site inclusionary requirement (e.g., $2 to $5 per square foot) may be more cost than new projects of this type can absorb at this time.

It is also important to note that while cities do not often take this approach at the outset of establishing a new inclusionary housing program, it tends to happen over time if cities do not regularly update their inclusionary housing in-lieu fees. For example, cities that have not updated their in-lieu fees in some time may find that the cost to a developer of complying with the inclusionary requirement by building affordable units on-site far exceeds the cost of paying the in-lieu fee, given changes in development costs over time.

While the above strategies will not change the market and economic conditions impacting residential development projects, they can reduce the additional costs associated with inclusionary requirements. This in turn may increase the likelihood that any individual market-rate project can feasibly contribute to the supply of affordable units in the City.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Development Program and Cost Categories

Item
Description
Sources
Development
Prototype
Density
Units permitted per acre, for each
development prototype.

City zoning code and staff input
Unit Size
Average size of a unit.

CoStar; Redfin; Developer input;
City staff input
Parking Requirement
Number of parking spaces required per unit.

City zoning code and staff input
Development Costs
Land Costs
Acquisition of land. Varies by location and
prototype.

CoStar, vacant land transactions
where underlying zoning allows
residential development; Developer
input; SGVRHT pro formas
Site Preparation
Demolition (if needed), grading, horizontal
infrastructure.

Developer input; EPS experience
Hard Costs
On-site work (labor and materials), vertical
construction, general requirements,
overhead and builder fees (excl. parking
costs). Varies by prototype, with denser
development costing more on a per square
foot basis.

Developer input; Cost estimators
(RLB, Marshall & Swift); EPS
experience
Parking Costs
Hard costs specific to parking. Multifamily
development assumes one to two levels of
above-grade, podium-style parking beneath
residential. Costs can range from $40,000 to
$60,000 per space, or higher if
undergrounding is required. Analysis
assumes $50,000.

Developer input; Cost estimators
(RLB, Marshall & Swift, Watry);
EPS experience
Soft Costs
Architecture and engineering; entitlement
and fees; project management; consultants;
marketing, commissions, and general
administration; financing and charges;
insurance; and contingency. Assumed to be
a percentage of hard costs.

Developer input; EPS experience

Appendix B: In-Lieu Fees in Other California Jurisdictions

Jurisdiction Rental Ownership
Alhambra [1] $0.89 - $14.30 $1.88 - $30.00
Pom
ona [1] $0.33 - $9.20 $0.33 - $11.40
Glendale [1] $28.71 - $55.00 $28.71 - $55.00
Pasadena [1] [2] $55.21 - $76.68 $56.84 - $78.95
Long Beach $47.50 $36.40
Montclair $15,400 (per unit) $15,400 (per unit)
Jurupa Valley [3] $2.50 $2.50
Fremont $17.50 $44.00
San Ramon $14.63 $15.70
In-Lieu Fee ($ / Sq. Ft.)
[1] These jurisdictions charge an in-lieu fee that varies by number of units in a project. [2] The in-lieu fee in Pasadena is dependent on the location of the development within the city.
[3] Jurupa Valley chose to set their in-lieu fee lower than the associated subsidy for on- site units.

Ci
ty Council Staff Report
DATE: January 15, 2025
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Amy Lee, City Treasurer
SUBJECT: Monthly Investment Report – December 2024
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the monthly investment report; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

As of December 31, 2024, invested funds for the City of Monterey Park total $90,954,510.04.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with the City’s Investment Policy, a monthly investment report is presented to the City Council showing the types of investments, dates and maturities, amounts of deposits, rates of interest, and the current market values for securities with maturity more than 12 months. The attached monthly investment report includes a portfolio summary from Chandler Asset Management.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Am
y Lee
City Treasurer
Martha Garcia
Finan
ce Director
Approved by:

In ez Alvarez
City Manager
AT
TACHMENT:

1. Monthly Investment Report
Consent Calendar - 3A

Staff Report
January 15, 2025

ATTACHMENT 1
Monthly Investment Report

INVESTMENTS PORTFOLIO PROFILE:

TOTAL BALANCE AT 12/31/2024 90,954,510.04$

INVESTMENT COMPOSITION
(1) LA COUNTY POOLED INVESTMENT FUND ON DEMAND 3.73% 25,989,850.56$ (2) LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND ON DEMAND 4.434% 31,677,259.06$ (3) CHANDLER ASSET MANAGEMENT 4.82% 25,693,400.42$
Purchase Maturity Interest
(4) CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT Date Date Rate
1 MEDALLION BANK UTAH 01/28/22 01/28/25 1.25% 245,000
2 PENTAGON FEDERAL UNION 01/31/22 01/31/25 1.25% 245,000 3 BEAL BANK 02/02/22 01/29/25 1.15% 245,000
4 VALLIANCE BANK 03/18/22 03/18/25 1.40% 245,000
5 STATE BANK OF TEXAS 03/25/22 03/25/25 1.45% 245,000
6 FIRST FED SAVINGS & LOAN 03/30/22 03/31/25 2.00% 245,000 7 LAFAYETTE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 03/30/22 03/31/25 2.20% 245,000 8 COMENITY CAPITAL BANK 04/14/22 04/14/25 2.55% 245,000 9 AMERICU CREDIT UNION 04/21/22 04/21/25 2.30% 245,000
10 BALBOA THRIFT & LOAN 04/29/22 04/29/25 2.00% 245,000 11 RAIZ CREDIT UNION 01/25/23 01/27/25 4.75% 245,000
12 GREENWOOD MUNICIPAL FED CREDIT UNION01/27/23 01/27/25 4.80% 245,000 13 WORKERS 01/27/23 01/27/25 4.70% 245,000
14 ALPINE BANK 01/31/23 01/31/25 4.55% 245,000
15 SOUTHEAST BANK 02/06/23 02/06/25 4.55% 245,000
16 RED CROWN FCU 02/22/23 02/21/25 4.85% 245,000
17 TECHNOLOGY FCU 02/24/23 02/24/25 5.00% 245,000
18 UFIRST FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 02/24/23 08/25/25 4.85% 245,000 19 SEA COMM FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 03/02/23 03/03/25 4.90% 245,000 20 WESTERN ALLIANCE BANK 05/05/23 05/05/25 4.85% 245,000 21 GLOBAL CREDIT UNION 05/12/23 05/12/25 4.85% 245,000
22 BANK OF AMERICA 07/24/24 07/24/25 4.85% 245,000
23 FLASTAR BANK NA 07/25/24 01/26/26 4.85% 245,000
24 CONNEX CU 08/06/24 08/06/25 4.95% 245,000
25 TRUSTONE FINANCIAL FCU 08/15/24 08/15/25 4.45% 245,000 26 PREFERRED BANK 09/03/24 09/03/25 4.41% 100,000
27 PREFERRED BANK 09/08/24 09/08/25 4.41% 150,000
28 FINANCIAL PARTNERS CREDIT UNION 09/13/24 09/12/25 4.35% 245,000 29 BARCLAYS BANK 09/18/24 09/18/25 4.30% 239,000
30 ROCKLAND FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 09/25/24 09/25/25 4.50% 245,000 31 KEYPOINT CREDIT UNION 10/30/24 10/30/25 4.35% 245,000 32 RIZE FED CREDIT UNION 12/13/24 12/14/26 4.25% 245,000 Total CDs (32) 3.746% 7,594,000.00$
OTHER INFORMATION:

BANK BALANCE: (1)
$18,762,086.31
AVERAGE MATURITY DAYS 228
AVERAGE INTEREST RATE FOR THE MONTH 4.278%

THE CITY'S INVESTMENT HAS SUFFICIENT LIQUIDITY TO MEET THE CITY'S EXPENDITURE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEXT 180 DAYS. THE 180-DAY LIQUIDITY DISCLOSURE IS REQUIRED PER GOVERNMENT CODE 53646.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO VARIANCES TO THE INVESTMENT POLICY.
(1) Bank balance is maintained to cover outstanding warrants, payroll checks and on-going operating costs.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK

INVESTMENT REPORT
DECEMBER 31, 2024

CONFIDENTIAL | 2
City of Monterey Park | Account #11189 | As of December 31, 2024 Chandler Asset Management | [email protected] | www.chandlerasset.com | 800.317.4747

PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
Portfolio Characteristics
Sector Allocation
Performance Review
Account Summary
Maturity Distribution
Top Issuers
Credit Quality
Total Rate of Return 1M 3M YTD 1YR 2YRS 3YRS 5YRS 10YRS (03/12/24) City of Monterey Park
AA
Beg. Values as of
12/01/2024
End Values as of
12/31/2024
Total Market Value 26,002,860.23 26,030,490.04
Par
FHLMC

City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 15, 2025
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Martha Garcia, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Waive Further Reading and Adopt an Ordinance Establishing a Business License Tax Schedule
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Ordinance was introduced and received first reading at the December 18, 2024, City Council meeting. The original staff report is attached for reference. Second reading and adoption of this Ordinance is recommended. If adopted, the Ordinance will replace Urgency Ordinance (attached).

Respectfully submitted by:

Martha Garcia
Director of Finance
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Justin A. Tamayo
Assistant City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:

1. Draft Ordinance

2. Urgency Ordinance

3. December 18, 2024 Staff Report (without attachments) Consent Calendar - 3B

Staff Report
January 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Ordinance

ORDINANCE NO.

AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS LICENSE TAX

SCHEDULE BASED ON BUSINESSES GROSS RECEIPTS
The City Council of the city of Monterey Park does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follow:

A. On November 5, 2024, voters adopted Measure BE which updated the structure of the City’s business license tax (“BLT”) to be based on a business’s gross receipts. The measure was adopted based upon a 70.46 % voter approval;
B. Section 9 of Measure BE authorizes the City Council to implement the BLT via regulations adopted by ordinance. This Ordinance exercises that authority in accordance with the voter’s intent;
C. The City Counci l is implementing a scaled BLT schedule for businesses earning over $25,000,000 annually; and
D. The Ci
ty Council recognizes that California law including, without limitation, Melton v. City of San Pablo (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 794 and In re Cindy B. v.

Eugene B. (1987) 192 Cal.A pp.3d 771, allows legislation to be retroactively applied when the legislative intent for such retroactivity is clear.

SECTION
2: Pursuant to Section 9 of Measure BE, t he City Council adopts the Business License Tax Schedule as follows:

Gross Receipts From
Gross Receipts To &
Including Base fee
$0.00 $500,000.00 $75
$500,000.01 $25,000,000.00
$75 plus additional $.75 for
every $1,000 of gross receipts in
excess of $500,000
$25,000,000.01 $30,000,000.00 18,450.00
$30,000,000.01 $35,000,000.00 22,200.00
$35,000,000.01 $40,000,000.00 25,950.00
$40,000,000.01 $45,000,000.00 29,700.00
$45,000,000.01 $50,000,000.00 33,450.00
$50,000,000.01 $55,000,000.00 37,200.00
$55,000,000.01 $60,000,000.00 40,950.00
$60,000,000.01 $65,000,000.00 44,700.00
$65,000,000.01 $70,000,000.00 48,450.00
$70,000,000.01 over 85,950.00

Ordinance Report

January 15, 2025
SECTION 3: Unless otherwise revised, the Schedule established by this Ordinance will be automatically adjusted on an annual basis on January 1 of each year by applying the percent change of the Los Angeles Area of Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers for the prior 12-month period ending on October 31 to the scaled business license tax (BLT) schedule for businesses earning over $25,000,000 annually. The first fee adjustment cannot be m
ade before a minimum of nine months after the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4: This Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.; “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal.

Code
Regs. §§ 15000, et seq.) because it establishes, modifies, structures, restructures, and approves rates and charges for meeting operating expenses; purchasing suppl ies, equipment, and materials; meeting financial requirements; and obtaining funds for capital projects needed to maintain service within existing service areas. This Or dinance, therefore, is categorically exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines § 15273.

SECTION 5: Electronic Signatures. This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such el ectronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTI
ON 6: Recordation. The Mayor, or presiding officer, is authorized to sign this Ordinance signifying its adoption by the City Council of the City of Monterey Park and the City Cle
rk, or her duly appointed deputy, may attest thereto.

SECTI
ON 7: Effective Date. This Ordinance will become retroactively effective to January 1, 2025 and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of January, 2025.
____________________________
_________, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

Staff Report
January 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 2
Urgency Ordinance

HLI@=D=E7 =Hs eetu
D= M=EHI@v@7I ML^7=Ew HLI@=D=E7 78_DS`@8f@=^ D
SM8@=788 `@E7=87 _Dx 8Ef7IM`7 SD87I H= SM8@=78878
^LH88 L7E7@y_8
?+! 1#"01'.$-#) '2"+! -#"0'2T'$"!*!0z%*{,'!( '*,%#$ %( 2'))'9(a gN1?|Uh Ja ?+! 1#"01'.$-#) 2#$,( %( 2'))'9a
b5 U$ h'6!34!* V: BCBW: 6'"!*( %,'/"!, T!%(.*! AN 9+#-+ ./,%"!, "+! ("*.-".*! '2 "+! 1#"0K( 4.(#$!(( )#-!$(! "%X Y}AO?~Z "' 4! 4%(!, '$ %

4.(#$!((K(;*'((*!-!#/"(5 ?+!3!%(.*!9%(%,'/"!,4%(!, ./'$%FC5W[< 6'"!*%//*'6%)P
A5 g!-"#'$ G '2T!%(.*! AN %."+'*#c!( "+! 1#"01'.$-#) "' #3/)!3!$""+! AO? 6#% *!;.)%"#'$( %,'/"!, 40 '*,#$%$-!5 ?+#( U*,#$%$-! !X!*-#(!( "+%" %."+'*#"0#$ %--'*,%$-! 9#"+ "+! 6'"!*K( #$"!$"P
15 ?+! 1#"0 1'.$-#) #( #3/)!3!$"#$; % (-%)!, AO? (-+!,.)! 2'* 4.(#$!((!( !%*$#$; '6!*>BV:CCC:CCC %$$.%))0P %$,
&5 ?+! 1#"01'.$-#) *!-';$#c!( "+%"1%)#2'*$#% )%9#$-).,#$;: 9#"+'.")#3#"%"#'$:
¥\kldR m] nolpd¦§qR ¨q©kd YJG[FZ BVB 1%)5b//5B, FGW %$, ªR «\ noR¬pr] m] ®¯°\R\ r] YJG¡FZ JGB 1%)5b//5Q, FFJ: %))'9( )!;#()%"#'$ "' 4! *!"*'%-"#6!)0%//)#!, 9+!$"+!)!;#()%"#6!#$"!$"2'*(.-+*!"*'%-"#6#"0#(-)!%*5 N5 ?'!$(.*!"+%""+!6'"!*K(9#)) #(#3/)!3!$"!, !X/!,#"#'.()0: "+!1#"01'.$-#) 2#$,( #" #( #$ "+! /.4)#- #$"!*!(" "+%" "+! AO? (-+!,.)! 4!-'3! !22!-"#6!)0 #33!,#%"!)0 (' "+%" #" 3%0 4! #3/)!3!$"!, 4!;#$$#$; ¢%$.%*0 J: BCBV5 i%#).*! "' #3/)!3!$" "+! AO? (-+!,.)! 9'.), *!(.)" #$ ,#(*./"#$; "+! "%X *!6!$.! %."+'*#c!, 40 "+! 6'"!*(P -*!%"! #$!22#-#!$-#!( 9#"+#$ "+! 1#"0K( 2#$%$-!(P %$, *!(.)"#$ #$!£.#"0%( "' "+! %//)#-%"#'$ '2T!%(.*! AN5 i5 A%(!, '$ "+! 2'*!;'#$;: %$,: #$ %--'*,%$-! 9#"+ ¤'6!*$3!$" 1',! jj Q[GQW%$, Q[GQFY4Z%$, "+!1#"0K(/')#-!/'9!*(: "+!1#"01'.$-#) 2#$,("+%" "+%" "+#( U*,#$%$-! (+'.), 4! %,'/"!, '$ %$ .*;!$-0 4%(#( "' /*!(!*6! /.4)#-/!%-!: +!%)"+: (%2!"0%$, 9!)2%*!5

@).#$'$-" S*, ==3G
T'7" = *2E
IF8DO@S =U n<o pP>?]^_?, T0)(0'$% %* I"-%#*$ X *2 c"'(0)" dF+ %1" 8#%9 8*0$-#/ '.*5%( %1" d0(#$"(( e#-"$(" D'J I-1".0/" '( 2*//*K(U
qQNCC i?P?RrLC &QN`
qQNCC i?P?RrLC oN ¡
sHP_^]RHt naC? ¢??
4!,!! 43!!+!!!,!! 4G3
43!!+!!!,!: 4=3+!!!+!!!,!!
4G3 5/0( '..#%#*$'/ 4,G3 2*)
"A")9 4:+!!! *27)*(( )"-"#5%(
#$ "J-"(( *243!!+!!!
4=3+!!!+!!!,!: 4E!+!!!+!!!,!! :f+B3!,!!
4E!+!!!+!!!,!: 4E3+!!!+!!!,!! ==+=!!,!!
4E3+!!!+!!!,!: 4B!+!!!+!!!,!! =3+X3!,!!
4B!+!!!+!!!,!: 4B3+!!!+!!!,!! =X+G!!,!!
4B3+!!!+!!!,!: 43!+!!!+!!!,!! EE+B3!,!!
43!+!!!+!!!,!: 433+!!!+!!!,!! EG+=!!,!!
433+!!!+!!!,!: 4V!+!!!+!!!,!! B!+X3!,!!
4V!+!!!+!!!,!: 4V3+!!!+!!!,!! BB+G!!,!!
4V3+!!!+!!!,!: 4G!+!!!+!!!,!! Bf+B3!,!!
4G!+!!!+!!!,!: *A") f3+X3!,!!
IF8DO@S EU £¤s u]¥^CL`?HL, j$/"(( *%1")K#(" )"A#(".+ %1" I-1".0/" "(%';/#(1". ;9 %1#( @).#$'$-" K#// ;" '0%*6'%#-'//9 '.g0(%". *$ '$ '$$0'/ ;'(#( *$ z'$0')9 : *2 "'-1 9"') ;9 '55/9#$7 %1" 5")-"$% -1'$7" *2 %1" e*( M$7"/"( M)"' *2 8*$(06") T)#-" O$."J Z8TO[ 2*)M// j);'$ 8*$(06")( 2*)%1" 5)#*):={6*$%1 5")#*. "$.#$7 *$ @-%*;")E: %* %1" (-'/". ;0(#$"(( /#-"$(" %'J ZdeD[ (-1".0/" 2*) ;0(#$"(("( "')$#$7 *A") 4=3+!!!+!!! '$$0'//9, D1" 2#)(% 2"" '.g0(%6"$% -'$$*% ;" 6'." ;"2*)" ' 6#$#606 *2 $#$" 6*$%1( '2%") %1" "22"-%#A" .'%" *2%1#( @).#$'$-",
IF8DO@S BU vH¦RQNH`?HLa_ uCC?CC`?HL, D1#( @).#$'$-" #( "J"65% 2)*6 )"A#"K 0$.") %1" 8'/#2*)$#'F$A#)*$6"$%'/ Y0'/#%9M-%Z8'/, T0;, k"(, 8*."WW =:!!!+ bwxby,\ |8FYM}[ '$. 8FYM h0#."/#$"( Z:B 8'/, 8*." k"7(, WW :3!!!+ bw xby,[ ;"-'0(" #% "(%';/#(1"(+ 6*.#2#"(+ (%)0-%0)"(+ )"(%)0-%0)"(+ '$. '55)*A"( )'%"( '$. -1')7"( 2*)6""%#$7 *5")'%#$7 "J5"$("(\ 50)-1'(#$7 (055/#"(+ "l0#56"$%+ '$. 6'%")#'/(\ 6""%#$7 2#$'$-#'/ )"l0#)"6"$%(\ '$. *;%'#$#$7 20$.( 2*) -'5#%'/ 5)*g"-%( $"".". %* 6'#$%'#$ (")A#-" K#%1#$ "J#(%#$7 (")A#-" ')"'(, D1#( @).#$'$-"+ %1")"2*)"+ #( -'%"7*)#-'//9 "J"65% 2)*6 20)%1") 8FYM )"A#"K 0$.") 8FYM h0#."/#$"( W :3=GE,
IF8DO@S 3U v_?PLQNHRP pRtHaL^Q?C, D1#( @).#$'$-" 6'9 ;" "J"-0%". K#%1 "/"-%)*$#- (#7$'%0)"( #$ '--*).'$-" K#%1 h*A")$6"$% 8*." W:V,3, I0-1 "/"-%)*$#- (#7$'%0)"( K#// ;" %)"'%". #$ '// )"(5"-%( '( 1'A#$7 %1" ('6" "22"-% '( '$ *)#7#$'/ (#7$'%0)", IF8DO@S VU i?PNQ]aLRNH, D1" c'9*)+ *) 5)"(#.#$7 *22#-")+ #( '0%1*)#~". %* (#7$ %1#( @).#$'$-" (#7$#29#$7 #%( '.*5%#*$ ;9 %1" 8#%9 8*0$-#/ *2%1" 8#%9 *2c*$%")"9 T')m '$. %1" 8#%9 8/")m+ *) 1") .0/9 '55*#$%". ."50%9+ 6'9 '%%"(% %1")"%*,

8),($%$." 6#E ==RM
D%5" N #/N
@A0?G86 M9 i__Vj`klV mn`Vo Y%-", #$ '1" /($,($5- ($ @".'(#$ J2 '1(- :)5"$.*#),($%$." (-%,#B'", 3*%/#:)a/(/'1-H#'" /#)'1" (44",(%'"B)"-")H%'(#$ #/'1"B:3+(.B"%."2 1"%+'12 -%/"'* %$, S"+/%)" %$, 3".#4"- "//".'(H" (44",(%'"+* B:)-:%$' '# Z#H")$4"$' 0#," [ NbcNMd3OE G'4%*3" (4B+"4"$'", 3"5($$($5 e%$:%)*J2 =P=RE D7@@AC 76C 7C8D?AC '1(- JTWX ,%*#/C"."43")=P=UE
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\($1 65#2 ;%*#)
7??A@?9
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;%*.1"++" F""2 0('*0+")K
7DDI8\AC 7@ ?8 L8I;9
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
]%)+ fE Y")5")2 0('*7''#)$"*
@?7?A 8L 07QGL8I6G7 O
08^6?F8L Q8@ 76ZAQA@ O [
0G?F8L ;86?AIAFD7I] O
G2 ;%*.1"++" F""2 0('* 0+")K #/ '1" 0('* #/ ;#$'")"* D%)K2 0%+(/#)$(%2 ,# 1")"3* .")'(/* '1%' '1" /#)"5#($5 ^)5"$.* 8),($%$." 6#E ==RM S%- ,:+* B%--",2 %BB)#H", %$, %,#B'", %'('- )"5:+%)4""'($5 1"+, #$ JTWX ,%*#/C"."43")2 =P=U 3*'1" /#++#S($5 H#'"9 7*"-9 0#:$.(+ ;"43")-9 g#$52 @%$.1"h2 Q#2 F%$52 65#
6#"-9 0#:$.(+ ;"43")-9 6#$"
73-"$'9 0#:$.(+ ;"43")-9 6#$"
73-'%($9 0#:$.(+ ;"43")-9 6#$"
I".:-%+9 0#:$.(+ ;"43")-9 6#$"
C%'", '1(- JTWX ,%*#/C"."43")2 =P=UE
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;%*.1"++" F""2 0('*0+")K
0('*#/;#$'")"*D%)K2 0%+(/#)$(%

Staff Report
January 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 3
December 18, 2024 Staff Report

City Council Staff Report
DATE: December 18, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Martha Garcia, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Adopt a Ordinance Establishing a Business License Tax Schedule RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Adopt an urgency ordinance establishing a business license tax schedule;

2. Introduce and waive first reading of an ordinance establishing a business license tax schedule;

3. Approve a one-time extension for renewal of business license tax, due and payable by April 1, 2025; and

4. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

These actions are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 2100, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA regulations (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) because they establish rules and procedures to implement government funding mechanisms; do not involve any commitment to a specific project which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; and constitute an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Accordingly, neither of the propositions constitute a “project” that requires environmental review (see specifically 14 CCR § 15378(b)(4-5)).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On November 5, 2024, voters adopted Measure BE which updated the structure of the City’s business license tax to be based on a business’s gross receipts. The measure was adopted based upon a 70.46% voter approval.

In order to continue to be an attractive place for larger businesses to operate, City staff is recommending a scaled business license tax (BLT) schedule for businesses earning over $25,000,000 annually. The City is also seeking approval for one-time extension for renewal of business license tax, due and payable by April 1, 2025.

BACKGROUND:

Staff Report

December 18, 2024

Like many cities, the City of Monterey Park imposes a local business tax to help fund municipal services within the community. The City uses these revenues for City services such as police patrol, fire suppression, park s, recreation, maintenance services, library services and senior programs. The business license tax is not regulatory; it is for revenue generation only.

The Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) § 5.08.010 requires that any person (which includes businesses) owning or transacting business in the City must obtain a license , regardless of where the business is physically located.

Approximately seven of the current 4,700 businesses within the City are estimated to gross over $25,000,000 in revenue annually. The next highest revenue grossing business earns less than $10,000,000 annually. City staff is proposing to adopt a Resolution allowing for a scaled BLT schedule that would ensure fairness while remaining business- friendly to the seven extremely high grossing businesses . The Resolution permits an automatic annual increase based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers for the prior 12-month period ending on October 31st and would be applied and effective on Janaury1
st of each year (beginning January 1, 202 6). Section 9 of Measure BE authorizes the City Council to implement the BLT via regulations adopted by ordinance.

Recommended Business License Tax Schedule:

Gross Receipts From
Gross Receipts To &
Including
Business License Tax
Cost
$0.00 $500,000.00 $75
$500,000.01 $25,000,000.00
$75 plus additional $0.75 for
every $1,000 of gross receipts
in excess of $500,000
$25,000,000.01 $30,000,000.00 18,450.00
$30,000,000.01 $35,000,000.00 22,200.00
$35,000,000.01 $40,000,000.00 25,950.00
$40,000,000.01 $45,000,000.00 29,700.00
$45,000,000.01 $50,000,000.00 33,450.00
$50,000,000.01 $55,000,000.00 37,200.00
$55,000,000.01 $60,000,000.00 40,950.00
$60,000,000.01 $65,000,000.00 44,700.00
$65,000,000.01 $70,000,000.00 48,450.00
$70,000,000.01 over 85,950.00

Staff Report

December 18, 2024

To ensure that the City may collect the BLT on schedule, it is recommended that the City adopt the draft urgency ordinance that would take effect immediately. This would allow the City to begin collecting the BLT on January 1, 2025. Furthermore, Municipal Code §

5.08.210, states annual business license tax shall be due and payable in advance on the first day of January of each year. To allow businesses to adjust to the new BLT structure, the City is seeking approval for a one-time extension for renewal of business license tax, due and payable by April 1, 2025.

2024-25 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

With the passing of Measure BE, the City is seeking to achieve its goal of maintaining fiscal stability of our City’s financial resources, specifically its objective of reviewing and revising city revenue sources while also maintaining a business-friendly climate and ensuring an equitable, fair, and modern business license tax base. Setting a BLT Schedule will allow businesses grossing $25,000,000 or more annually to pay their fair share without unduly impacting their overall operations and will help the City maintain fiscal stability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City currently receives approximately $800,000 in BLT. The passing of Measure BE inclusive of the business license tax schedule is expected to generate approximately $1,200,000 annually for the city in general fund revenues, an increase of $400,000.

Respectfully submitted by:

Martha Garcia
Finance Director

Approved by:

Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney

ATTACHMENT:

1. Urgency Ordinance

2. Regular Ordinance

City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 15, 2025
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shawn Igoe, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Waive Further Reading and Adopt an Ordinance setting speed limits based upon certification of the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey for speed limits effective through October 2031 and the 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey of 26 Locations for speed limits through October 2038 RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Waiving the second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Ordinance was re-introduced and received first reading at the December 18 , 2024 City Council meeting. The original staff report (from November 6, 2024) is attached for reference. Second reading and adoption of this Ordinance is recommended. If adopted, the Ordinance will take effect in 30 days.

Respectfully submitted by:

Shawn Igoe
Director of Public Works
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Justin A. Tamayo
Assistant City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:

1. Draft Ordinance

2. November 6, 2024 Staff Report (without attachments)
Consent Calendar - 3C

Staff Report
January 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Ordinance

1 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SPEED LIMITS FOR CERTAIN

LOCATIONS AS PROVIDED BY MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE § 10.32.010(B) IN ACCORDANCE WITH VEHICLE CODE §
22357 BASED UPON AN ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
AS DEFINED BY VEHICLE CODE § 627.

THE CITY COUNCIL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: T
he City Council finds as follows:

A. Vehicle Code § 22352 establishes prima facie speed limits throughout the City;

B. Vehicle Code § 22357 authorizes the City to establish certain speed limits based upon an engineering and traffic survey as defined by Vehicle Code § 627;

C. In accordance with Vehicle Code § 40802, the speed limits authorized by Vehicle Code § 22357 must be justified by engineering and traffic surveys conducted every five to 10 years;

D. The City adopted its last Engineering and Traffic Survey August 2, 2017. On October 11, 2024 Transtech Engineers, Inc. certified the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey to be accurate for an additional 14 years (“2017 Certification Report”). The 2017 Certification Report determined no significant changes on 45 out of 73 segments, thereby certifying the posted speed limits effective October 2017 through October 2031.

Additionally, a supplemental 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey of 26 Locations was completed October 11, 2024 (meeting the requirements of Vehicle Code § 627) for the remaining 26 segments ( “2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey” ). The 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey recommended a speed limit change on 14 of the 26 segments analyzed. The 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey also confirms the certification of 12 segments, maintaining the current posted speed limits. The 2017 Certification Report and 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey, collectively the “Survey” , are attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference; and

E. This Ordinance, and the speed limits established below, rely upon the Survey for purposes of Vehicle Code § 22357 and is adopted in accordance with Monterey Park Municipal Code § 10.32.010(B) as an uncodified ordinance.

SECTION 2: T
he City Council adopts the 2017 Certification Report. Based upon the

2 Report, and in accordance with Vehicle Code §§ 22352 and 22357, the City Council amends Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2144, adopted November 1, 2017, for speed limits effective until October 2031 as follows:

Table 1: City of Monterey Park 14-Year Certification of the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey Speed Limits
2017 Adopted Speed Limits are Effective until October of 2031 ID Primary Location Limits Street
Classification
CRS Maps
Adopted
2017 Speed
Limit
Beginning Ending
1 Abajo Road Garvey Avenue Vagabond Drive Local 25
2 Ackley Street Fulton Avenue Orange Avenue Collector 25 3 Ackley Street Orange Avenue Arroyo Drive Secondary 25 4 Brightwood Street Crest Vista Drive Atlantic Boulevard Local 25 5 Cadiz Street/Crest
Vista Drive Ridgecrest Street Atlantic Boulevard Collector 25 6 Casuda Canyon Drive Garvey Avenue Alzado Street Collector 25 7 Casuda Canyon Drive Alzado Street Corporate Center
Drive
Collector 30
8 Coral View Street Garfield Avenue Fulton Avenue Collector 25 9 Corporate Center
Drive
Ramona Boulevard Casuda Canyon
Drive
Secondary 40
10 Corporate Center
Drive
Casuda Canyon
Drive
Floral Drive Secondary 40
11 Crest Vista Drive Ridgcrest Street Floral Drive Collector 25 12 El Repetto Drive Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Collector 25 13 Emerson Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Secondary 25 14 Emerson Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Secondary 25 15 Findlay Avenue Riggin Street Pomona Boulevard Secondary 25 16 First Street West City Limit Atlantic Boulevard Secondary 35 17 Fulton Avenue Kempton Avenue Coral View Street Local/Collector 25 18 Fulton Avenue Coral View Street Floral Drive Collector 30 19 Fulton Avenue Floral Drive Pomona Boulevard Collector 25 20 Grandridge Avenue Garfield Avenue El Repetto Drive Local 25 21 Graves Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Secondary 30 22 Harding Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Ramona Avenue Secondary 25 23 Hillside Street Ridge Crest Street Floral Drive Local 25 24 Kempton Avenue Lincoln Avenue Fulton Avenue (s) Local 25 25 Markland Drive Riggin Street Potrero Grande
Drive
Local/Collector 25
26 McPherrin Avenue Garvey Avenue Harding Avenue Local 25

3 27 Monterey Pass Road Garvey Avenue Vagabond Road Secondary 40 28 Monterey Pass Road Vagabond Road Floral Drive Secondary 40 29 New Avenue Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Principal Arterial 35 30 New Avenue Garvey Avenue Graves Avenue Secondary 35
31 Newmark Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Collector 30 32 Newmark Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Collector 30 33 Ramona Avenue Garvey Avenue Garfield Avenue Collector 25 34 Ramona Boulevard West City Limits North City Limits Secondary 35 35 Ridgcrest Street Hillside Street Floral Avenue Local 25 36 Riggin Street Atlantic Boulevard Findlay Avenue Secondary 35 37 Riggin Street Findlay Avenue Garfield Avenue Secondary 35 38 Riggin Street Garfield Avenue Fulton Avenue Secondary/Loc al
30 39 Saturn Street Atlas Avenue Potrero Grande
Drive
Secondary 40
40 Verde Vista Drive Casuda Canyon
Drive
Abajo Drive Local 25
41 Wilcox Avenue Kempton Avenue Coral View Street Local 25 42 Wilcox Avenue Coral View Street Riggin Street Local/Secondar y
25 43 Wilcox Avenue Riggin Street Pomona Boulevard Secondary 35 44 Ynez Avenue Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Collector 30 45 Ynez Avenue Garvey Avenue Graves Avenue Local 25

SECTION 3: T
he City Council adopts the 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey .

Based upon the Survey, and in accordance with Vehicle Code §§ 22352 and 22357, the City Council amends Exhibit A to Ordinance No. 2144, adopted November 1, 2017, for speed limits effective until October 2038 as follows:

Table 2: City of Monterey Park 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary

ID

Primary
Location
Limits
Street
Class. (A)
Existing
Posted
Speed
Change
in Limit?
Yes/No
Proposed 2024
Speed Limit
Beginning Ending
1 Alhambra
Avenue
Hellman
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue Collector 30 No 301
2 Alhambra
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue
Graves
Avenue
Collector 35 Yes 301
3 Atlantic
Boulevard
Hellman
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue Primary 30 No 301
4 Atlantic
Boulevard
Garvey
Avenue
Harding
Avenue Primary 35 No 35
30

4 14 Garfield
Avenue
El Repetto
Drive

Riggin Street

Primary

40 Yes

352
15 Garfield
Avenue Riggin Street Pomona
Boulevard Primary 35 No 351
16 Garvey
Avenue
Casuda
Canyon Drive
Fremont
Avenue
Secondary 40 No 40
17 Garvey
Avenue
Fremont
Avenue
Atlantic
Boulevard Secondary 40 No 40
18 Garvey
Avenue
Atlantic
Boulevard
Garfield
Avenue Secondary 30 No 30
19 Garvey
Avenue
Garfield
Avenue New Avenue Secondary 30 No 301
20 Orange
Avenue
Hellman
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue Secondary 30 Yes 252
21 Orange
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue
Graves
Avenue Secondary 30 Yes 252
22 Orange
Avenue
Graves
Avenue Metro Drive Secondary 30 Yes 252
23 Orange
Avenue Metro Drive Saturn Street Secondary 35 Yes 302
24 Pomona
Boulevard
Gerhart
Avenue
Garfield
Avenue Primary 40 Yes 352
25 Pomona
Boulevard
Garfield
Avenue
Markland
Drive Primary 40 Yes 352
5 Atlantic
Boulevard
Harding
Avenue
El Repetto
Drive Primary 40 Yes 352
6 Atlantic
Boulevard
El Repetto
Drive Floral Drive Primary 40 Yes 352
7 Atlantic
Boulevard Floral Drive First Street Primary 35 No 351
8 Avenida
Cesar Chavez
West City Limit Atlantic
Boulevard
Secondary 35 Yes 302
9 Floral Drive West City Limit Monterey Pass
Road Secondary 35 No 35
10 Floral Drive Monterey Pass
Road
Atlantic
Boulevard
Secondary 40 Yes 352
11 Garfield
Avenue
Hellman
Avenue
Newmark
Avenue Primary 30 No 301
12 Garfield
Avenue
Newmark
Avenue
Graves
Avenue Primary 35 No 351
13 Garfield
Avenue
Graves
Avenue
El Repetto
Drive
Primary 40 Yes 352

5 26 Potrero
Grande Drive
Markland
Drive Arroyo Drive Primary 45 Yes 402

SECTION 4: T he City Manager, or designee, is authorized and directed to (a) install signs providing notification of the speed limits established in Sections 2 and 3 of this Ordinance; and (b) take any additional action required to implement this Ordinance.

SECTION 5: C alifornia Environmental Quality Act Exemption. The City Council determines that this ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq ., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) because it consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to an existing code of speed control regulations established in accordance with California law and will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or findings. This Ordinance, therefore, is an action being taken for enhanced protection of the environment and that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment.

Consequently, it is categorically exempt in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301 as a minor alteration of existing public or private structures involving no expansion of use; 15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations which do not result in any changes in land use or density; and 15308 as an action taken by a regulatory agency as authorized by California law to assure maintenance or protection of the environment.

SECTION 6: R
epeal or amendment of any provision of the MPMC or any other ordinance will not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before this Ordinance’s effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 7: I
f this the entire Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, any repeal of the MPMC or other the city ordinance by this Ordinance will be rendered void and cause such MPMC provision or other the city ordinance to remain in full force and effect for all purposes.

SECTION 8: T
he City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Monterey Park’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 9: T
his Ordinance will become effective on the 30 th day following its passage and adoption.

6 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of January, 2025.
______
______________________
Vinh Ngo, Mayor
ATTE
ST:
______
__________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk
APPRO
VED AS TO FORM:
______
__________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

EXHIBIT "A"

TO DRAFT ORDINANCE

CERTIFICATION OF THE 2017 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY TO 14 -YEARS, EFFECTIVE UNTIL OCTOBER 2031
Adopted by Monterey Park City Council
Resolution No. xx -xx on Date X X, 2024
Transtech.org
855.595.2495 (toll-free)
ISO 9001 Certified
Submitted By:

TRANSTECH ENGINEERS, INC.

Contact Person
Jana Robbins, PTP, RSP
E: [email protected]

Submitted To:

DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 14-YEAR CERTIFICATION OF THE 2017 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY EFFECTIVE DATES: XX 2024 THROUGH XX 2031, ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 2 of 5 DRAFT

INSERT SIGNED CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION HERE

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 14-YEAR CERTIFICATION OF THE 2017 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY EFFECTIVE DATES: XX 2024 THROUGH XX 2031, ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 3 of 5 DRAFT
PREPARER’S CERTIFICATION

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA

CERTIFICATION OF THE
2017 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
TO 14-YEARS
CVC SECTION 627
EFFECTIVE DATES: OCTOBER 2017 THROUGH OCTOBER 2031
THE 14-YEAR CERTIFICATION WAS ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ## ON DATE
Certified By:

Okan Demirci, PE, Contract City Engineer
__________________________
Okan Demirci, PE
License Type: Registered Professional Engineer
License Number: 90039

CERTIFICATION BY ENGINEER
I, Okan Demirci, contract City Engineer, do hereby certify that (45) segments found in the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey for the City of Monterey Parks are in compliance with CVC (California Vehicle Code), Section 40802, Paragraph (c), Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2)/(B)/(i)/(II). I have evaluated the (45) street segments listed in the City’s 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey, and determined that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred on the se (45) street segments indicated on the attached list, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, and therefore, where noted on the attached list, posted speed limits shall be valid for 14 years from the adopted date of the survey effective between October 2017 through October 2031. (28) of the original (73) street segments from the 2017 City-Wide Speed Survey were pulled from the 14 year certification and a new engineering and traffic survey was completed 06/30/25

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 14-YEAR CERTIFICATION OF THE 2017 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY EFFECTIVE DATES: XX 2024 THROUGH XX 2031, ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 4 of 5 DRAFT
for these segments. The speed survey completed for these segments will be under separate cover.

Table 1: City of Monterey Park 14-Year Certification of the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey Speed Limits
2017 Adopted Speed Limits are Effective until October of 2031

ID Primary Location Limits Street
Classification
CRS Maps
Adopted
2017 Speed
Limit
Beginning Ending
1 Abajo Road Garvey Avenue Vagabond Drive Local 25
2 Ackley Street Fulton Avenue Orange Avenue Collector 25 3 Ackley Street Orange Avenue Arroyo Drive Secondary 25 4 Brightwood Street Crest Vista Drive Atlantic Boulevard Local 25 5 Cadiz Street/Crest Vista
Drive
Ridgecrest Street Atlantic Boulevard Collector 25
6 Casuda Canyon Drive Garvey Avenue Alzado Street Collector 25 7 Casuda Canyon Drive Alzado Street Corporate Center
Drive
Collector 30
8 Coral View Street Garfield Avenue Fulton Avenue Collector 25 9 Corporate Center Drive Ramona Boulevard Casuda Canyon Drive Secondary 40 10 Corporate Center Drive Casuda Canyon Drive Floral Drive Secondary 40 11 Crest Vista Drive Ridgcrest Street Floral Drive Collector 25 12 El Repetto Drive Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Collector 25 13 Emerson Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Secondary 25 14 Emerson Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Secondary 25 15 Findlay Avenue Riggin Street Pomona Boulevard Secondary 25 16 First Street West City Limit Atlantic Boulevard Secondary 35 17 Fulton Avenue Kempton Avenue Coral View Street Local/Collector 25 18 Fulton Avenue Coral View Street Floral Drive Collector 30 19 Fulton Avenue Floral Drive Pomona Boulevard Collector 25 20 Grandridge Avenue Garfield Avenue El Repetto Drive Local 25 21 Graves Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Secondary 30 22 Harding Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Ramona Avenue Secondary 25 23 Hillside Street Ridge Crest Street Floral Drive Local 25 24 Kempton Avenue Lincoln Avenue Fulton Avenue (s) Local 25 25 Markland Drive Riggin Street Potrero Grande Drive Local/Collector 25 26 McPherrin Avenue Garvey Avenue Harding Avenue Local 25 27 Monterey Pass Road Garvey Avenue Vagabond Road Secondary 40 28 Monterey Pass Road Vagabond Road Floral Drive Secondary 40 29 New Avenue Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Principal Arterial 35 30 New Avenue Garvey Avenue Graves Avenue Secondary 35
31 Newmark Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Collector 30 32 Newmark Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Collector 30 33 Ramona Avenue Garvey Avenue Garfield Avenue Collector 25 34 Ramona Boulevard West City Limits North City Limits Secondary 35 35 Ridgcrest Street Hillside Street Floral Avenue Local 25 36 Riggin Street Atlantic Boulevard Findlay Avenue Secondary 35 37 Riggin Street Findlay Avenue Garfield Avenue Secondary 35 38 Riggin Street Garfield Avenue Fulton Avenue Secondary/Local 30 39 Saturn Street Atlas Avenue Potrero Grande Drive Secondary 40

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 14-YEAR CERTIFICATION OF THE 2017 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY EFFECTIVE DATES: XX 2024 THROUGH XX 2031, ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 5 of 5 DRAFT
Table 1: City of Monterey Park 14-Year Certification of the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey Speed Limits
2017 Adopted Speed Limits are Effective until October of 2031

ID Primary Location Limits Street
Classification
CRS Maps
Adopted
2017 Speed
Limit
Beginning Ending
40 Verde Vista Drive Casuda Canyon Drive Abajo Drive Local 25 41 Wilcox Avenue Kempton Avenue Coral View Street Local 25 42 Wilcox Avenue Coral View Street Riggin Street Local/Secondary 25 43 Wilcox Avenue Riggin Street Pomona Boulevard Secondary 35 44 Ynez Avenue Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Collector 30 45 Ynez Avenue Garvey Avenue Graves Avenue Local 25

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024 DRAFT

2024 ENGINEERING
AND TRAFFIC SURVEY 26 LOCATIONS
CVC SECTION 627
Adopted by Monterey Park City Council
Ordinance No. xx-xx on Date XX, 2024
Transtech.org
855.595.2495 (toll-free)
ISO 9001 Certified
Submitted By:

TRANSTECH ENGINEERS, INC.

Contact Person
Jana Robbins, PTP, RSP
E: [email protected]

Submitted To:

DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page ii
DRAFT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE
Cover Page i
Table of Contents ii
Monterey Park City Council Adopted Ordinance No. xx-xx (Adopted October x, 2024) iii Preparer’s Certification (Engineer’s Stamp and Signature) iv Section 1: Introduction 1
✓ Table 1: List of Segments in Speed Survey 1
✓ Street Classifications 2
Section 2: Overview 4
✓ California Vehicle Code 4
✓ Local Authority to Establish Prima Facie Speed Limits 5 ✓ Speed Trap 5
✓ Engineering and Traffic Survey 6
✓ California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 7 ✓ Data Collection 8
✓ Procedures 9
Section 3: Summary of Recommendations 10
✓ Table 2: City of Monterey Park 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary 12 Section 4: City of Monterey Park 2024 Citywide Speed Limit Map and Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Map 15
✓ City of Monterey Park 2024 Citywide Speed Limit Map 16 ✓ City of Monterey Park 2024 Citywide Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Map 17 Section 5: Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Forms 18

Section 6: Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Counts 65

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page iii
DRAFT

INSERT SIGNED CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE HERE

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page iv
DRAFT
PREPARER’S CERTIFICATION

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA
PREPARER’S CERTIFICATION

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK, CALIFORNIA

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
CVC SECTION 627
EFFECTIVE DATE: OCTOBER X, 2024
ADOPTED BY ALHAMBRA CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. XX-XX ON OCTOBER X, 2024 Certified By:

Okan Demirci, PE, Contract City Engineer
__________________________
Okan Demirci, PE
License Type: Registered Professional Engineer
License Number: 90039

CERTIFICATION BY ENGINEER
I, Okan Demirci, contract City Engineer, do hereby certify that the October 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey for the City of Monterey Park was performed under my supervision. I certify that I am both experienced in performing surveys of this type and am duly registered in the State of California as a professional Engineer. The survey has been conducted in strict compliance with guidelines contained in the California Vehicle Code and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Data contained in this report represents a true and accurate description of traffic conditions existing on City of Monterey Park Streets.
06/30/25

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 1

DRAFT

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to prepare an Engineering and Traffic Survey at pre -determined locations in the City of Monterey Park to establish updated speed limits that can be enforced using radar. An Engineering and Traffic assessment was prepared for 26 street segments in the City of Monterey Park. Applicable sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and Department of Transportation California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD), per Revision 7 March 2023, have been followed so that the posted speed limits can be upheld by the courts and do not constitute a "Speed Trap" as defined by CVC Section 40802. The following table lists all of the street segments considered in the 2024 Speed Survey.

SEGMENT SUMMARY

Table 1: City of Monterey Park Engineering and Traffic Survey Speed Limits ID Primary Location
Limits Street
Classificati
on
CRS Maps
Adopted
2017 Speed
Limit Beginning Ending
1 Alhambra Avenue Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Collector 30 2 Alhambra Avenue Garvey Avenue Graves Avenue Collector 35 3 Atlantic Boulevard Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Principal 30 4 Atlantic Boulevard Garvey Avenue Harding Avenue Principal 35 5 Atlantic Boulevard Harding Avenue El Repetto Drive Principal 40 6 Atlantic Boulevard El Repetto Drive Floral Drive Principal 40 7 Atlantic Boulevard Floral Drive First Street Principal 35 8 Avenida Cesar
Chavez West City Limit Atlantic Boulevard Secondary 35
9 Floral Drive West City Limit Monterey Pass
Road Secondary 35
10 Floral Drive Monterey Pass
Road Atlantic Boulevard Secondary 35
11 Garfield Avenue Hellman Avenue Newmark Avenue Principal 30 12 Garfield Avenue Newmark Avenue Graves Avenue Principal 35 13 Garfield Avenue Graves Avenue El Repetto Drive Principal 40 14 Garfield Avenue El Repetto Drive Riggin Street Principal 40 15 Garfield Avenue Riggin Street Pomona Boulevard Principal 35 16 Garvey Avenue Casuda Canyon
Drive Fremont Avenue Secondary 40

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 2
DRAFT

Table 1: City of Monterey Park Engineering and Traffic Survey Speed Limits ID Primary Location
Limits Street
Classificati
on
CRS Maps
Adopted
2017 Speed
Limit Beginning Ending
17 Garvey Avenue Fremont Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Secondary 40 18 Garvey Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Secondary 30 19 Garvey Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Secondary 30 20 Orange Avenue Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Secondary 30 21 Orange Avenue Garvey Avenue Graves Avenue Secondary 30 22 Orange Avenue Graves Avenue Metro Drive Secondary 30 23 Orange Avenue Metro Drive Saturn Street Secondary 35 24 Pomona Boulevard Gerhart Avenue Garfield Avenue Principal 40 25 Pomona Boulevard Garfield Avenue Markland Drive Principal 40 26 Potrero Grande
Drive Markland Drive Arroyo Drive Principal 45

1 Road Classifications Based on Caltrans Road Classification (CRS) maps

STREET CLASSIFICATIONS

Each of these segments is classified and defined with roadway classifications as listed in the California Road Systems (CRS) Maps that are approved by the Federal Highway Administration and maintained by the Department of Transportation (CVC 40802). Functional classifications are used in determining which type of roads are eligible for Federal funding to maintain the roads.

Usually Principal Arterials, Secondary Arterial and Major Collectors are eligible.

Functional classification is the process by which streets and highways are grouped into classes, or systems, according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Basic to this process is the recognition that individual roads and streets do not serve travel independently in any major way. Rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads. Functional classification defines how a particular road or street plays in serving the flow of trips through a highway network.

The four functional systems for urbanized areas are urban principal arterials, minor arterials, major collectors, and local roads.

Principal Arterial: Principal Arterials carry most of the trips entering and leaving the City as well as serves the major centers of activity of a City, carries the highest traffic volume along its corridors while carrying the major portion of trips entering and leaving the urban area.

Secondary Arterial: The secondary arterial street system includes all arterials not classified as principal and contains facilities that place more emphasis on land access than the higher system

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 3
DRAFT

and offer a lower level of traffic mobility. Such facilities may carry local bus routes and provide intra-community continuity, but ideally should not penetrate identifiable neighborhoods. This system should include urban connections to rural collector roa ds where such connections have not been classified as urban principal arterials.

Collector: The collector street system provides both land access service and traffic circulation within residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas. It differs from the arterial system in that facilities on the collector system may penetrate residential neighborhoods, distributing trips from the arterials through the area to the ultimate destination. Conversely, the collector street also collects traffic from local streets in residential neighborhoods and channels it into the arterial system.

Local: These roadways provide direct access to individual residential properties, schools, and churches typically with a posted speed of 25 MPH. Through traffic on local streets are usually discouraged. Local roads within residential and business district zones are not subject to Speed Trap provisions and are posted at the Prima Facie speed limit. Service to through traffic movement is usually deliberately discouraged.

The following segments have been categorized and classified as follows by the City of Monterey Park.

Principal:
• Atlantic Boulevard between Hellman Avenue and Garvey Avenue • Atlantic Boulevard between Garvey Avenue and Harding Avenue • Atlantic Boulevard between Harding Avenue and El Repetto Drive • Atlantic Boulevard between El Repetto Drive and Floral Drive • Atlantic Boulevard between Floral Drive and First Street • Garfield Avenue between Hellman Avenue and Newmark Avenue • Garfield Avenue between Newmark Avenue and Graves Avenue • Garfield Avenue between Graves Avenue and El Repetto Drive • Garfield Avenue between El Repetto Drive and Riggin Street • Garfield Avenue between Riggin Street and Pomona Boulevard • Pomona Boulevard between Gerhart Avenue and Garfield Avenue • Pomona Boulevard between Garfield Avenue and Markland Drive • Potrero Grande Drive between Markland Drive and Arroyo Drive

Secondary:
• Avenida Cesar Chavez between West City Limit and Atlantic Boulevard • Floral Drive between West City Limit and Monterey Pass Road • Floral Drive between Monterey Pass Road and Atlantic Boulevard • Garvey Avenue between Casuda Canyon Drive and Fremont Avenue • Garvey Avenue between Fremont Avenue and Atlantic Boulevard • Garvey Avenue between Atlantic Boulevard and Garfield Avenue • Garvey Avenue between Garfield Avenue and New Avenue
• Orange Avenue between Hellman Avenue and Garvey Avenue • Orange Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 4
DRAFT

• Orange Avenue between Graves Avenue and Metro Drive
• Orange Avenue between Metro Drive and Saturn Street

Collector:
• Alhambra Avenue between Hellman Avenue and Garvey Avenue • Alhambra Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue

SECTION 2: OVERVIEW

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE:

Speed limits in California are governed by the California Vehicle Code (CVC), Sections 22348 through 22413. The statutes establish or provide means of establishing speed limits by:

1. Basic speed limit law.

Section 22350 of the CVC provides that no person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, traffic and the surface and width of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. This is the basic speed limit law.

2. Prima facie speed limits are specified by statute or established by the State or local authorities within their respective jurisdictions on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. Prima facie speed limits are specific limits stated in the CVC or specific limits established on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey authorized by the CVC. Prima facie speed limits are preempted by the basic speed limit law when the conditions in CVC Section 22350 are met.

Section 22352 of the CVC establishes prima facie speed limits as follows and shall be applicable unless changed as authorized in the CVC and if so changed, only when signs have been erected giving notice of the change:

a. Fifteen miles per hour.
• At a railroad grade crossing with an obstructed view. • At an uncontrolled highway intersection with an obstructed view. • In an alley.

b. Twenty-five miles per hour.
• On any highway other than a State highway, in any business or residence district, CVC Sections 235 and 515 define a "business district” and a “residence district” respectively.

Section 240 and 40802 of the CVC prescribes a method for determining whether a highway can be considered within a business or residence district. • Unless a different limit is established by procedures described elsewhere in the code. • In a school zone, posted with SCHOOL warning signs.
• When passing a facility primarily used by senior citizens and contiguous to a street other than a State highway and posted with a SENIOR warning sign.

Increase of local speed limits to 65 miles per hour

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 5
DRAFT

Section 22357.
(a) Whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 25 mph would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highwa y otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 25 mph, local authorities may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 or 60 mph or a maximum speed of 65mph, whichever is found most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe. The speed limit shall become effective when signs are installed on the street and not revised unless justified on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey.

LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS:

Sections 22357 and 22358 of CVC authorize local authorities to establish prima facie speed limits on streets and roads under their jurisdiction on the basis of an engineering and traffic survey. The declared prima Facie limits shall become effective when a ppropriate signs giving notice are erected upon the street.

SPEED TRAP:

Section 40802 2B(i) of the CVC provides that prima facie speed limits established under Sections 22352, 22354, 22357, 22358 and 22358.3 may not be enforced by radar unless the speed limit has been justified by an engineering and traffic survey conducted within one of the fo llowing time periods; five years to the date of the violation, within the last 7 years or if an engineering and traffic survey was conducted more than 7 years prior to the date of the alleged violation, and a registered engineer evaluates the section of th e highway and determines that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred, including, but not limited to, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, the survey applies for 14 years.

This section does not apply to local streets, roads, school zones or senior zones which have been set at the Prima Facie speed limit. Local streets are defined to have the following characteristics:
• Width not more than 40 feet
• Not more than .5 miles of uninterrupted length
• 1 lane in each direction

Senior Zones are those areas approaching or passing a senior center building or other facility primarily used by senior citizens or the grounds thereof that is posted with a standard “Senior” warning sign pursuant to Section 22352.

CVC Section 515 . A residence district is that portion of a highway and the property contiguous thereto, other than a business district, (a) upon one side of which highway, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 1 3 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or (b) upon both sides of which highway, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 6
DRAFT

Those segments classified as a local street in the California Road System (CRS) and are in a residential district and have a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph are not typically included in engineering and traffic studies.

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY:

Section 627 of CVC defines the term engineering and traffic survey and lists its requirements.

Section 627 states: "An engineering and traffic survey shall include, among other requirements deemed necessary by the Department of Transportation, consideratio n of all of the following:
prevailing speeds as determined by traffic engineering measurements, accident records, highway traffic and roadside conditions not readily apparent to the driver."

The Engineering and Traffic Survey should contain sufficient information to document that the conditions of CVC Section 627 have been complied with and that other conditions not readily apparent to motorists are properly identified.

In determining the speed limit, which most appropriately facilitates the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and prudent, crucial factors such as prevailing speeds, unexpected conditions, and collision records are examined.

Determination of posted speed limits follow the latest CAMUTCD Policy as Revision 7 March 2023 by the State of California Department of Transportation. Speed limits shall be established at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85 th percentile speed of free -flowing traffic (CVC Section 22358.6(a)). However, in cases in which the speed limit needs to be rounded up to the nearest five miles per hour increment of the 85 th percentile speed, the Department of Transportation or a local authority may decide to instead round down the speed limit to the lower five miles per hour increment, but then the Departmen t of Transportation or a local authority shall not reduce the speed limit any further for any reason CVC 21400(4)(b).

An example of the application of this speed limit criteria is as follows:
• If the 85 th percentile speed in a speed survey is (37 MPH) then the speed limit would be posted at 35 MPH or optionally reduced to 30 MPH. However, • If the 85 th percentile speed in a speed survey is (38 MPH) then the speed limit would be posted at 40 MPH or optionally reduced to 35 MPH.

The 85th percentile speed is often referred to as the critical speed. Pace speed is defined as the 10-mile increment of speed containing the largest number of vehicles. Speed limits established on the basis of the 85th percentile conform to the consensus of those who drive highways as to what speed is reasonable and prudent and are not dependent on the judgment of one or a few individuals.

Basic speed law states that no person shall drive at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent.

The majority of drivers comply with this law. Speed limits set at the 85 th percentile speed provide law enforcement officers with a means of controlling drivers who will not conform to what the majority considers reasonable and prudent.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 7
DRAFT

When roadside development results in traffic conflicts and unusual conditions which are not readily apparent to drivers, speed limits somewhat below the 85 th percentile may be justified.

CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (CAMUTCD):

Section 2B.13 CAMUTCD: Reduction of 85th Percentile Speed by Justification of an Engineering and Traffic Study and Approved by a Civil or Traffic Engineer.

Standard:
12a: When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5 MPH increment of the 85th-percentile speed of free -flowing traffic, except as shown in the two Options below for rounding down and using 5 mph speed reduction (CVC Section 22358.6(b)), or rounding up (CVC Section 22358.6(c)), or if using additional 5 mph speed reduction on local agency roadways for safety corridor designation (CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1)) or adjacent to land or facility generating high concentrations of bicyclists and pedestrians (CVC Section 22358.7(a)(2)).

Local Agencies may additionally lower the speed limits by 5 mph from those calculated using rounding up or down per CVC Section 22358.6(b) and 22358.6(c) and 5 mph speed reduction using CVC Section 22358.6(b) if after completing and E&TS, find that the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe for either of the following reasons:

1. The portion of a highway has been designated as a safety corridor

2. The portion of a highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, especially those vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities and the unhoused. (Table 2B-106(CA)- Requirements to determine Land or Facility that Generates High Concentrations of Bicyclists or Pedestrians.

Option:

1. For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85 th
-percentile speed would
require a rounding down, the posted speed may be reduced by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed, in compliance with CVC Sections 627 and 22358.5. CVC Sections 22353, 22353.2, 22353.3, 22353.4, and 22353.5, may also be considered, if applicable. See Standard below for documentation requirements. Refer to CVC Section 22358.6(b).

2. For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th-percentile speed would require a rounding up, then the speed limit may be rounded down to the nearest 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile speed, if no further reduction is used. Refer to CVC Section 21400(b). Refer to CVC Section 22358.6(c).

Standard:
12b: If the speed limit to be posted has had the 5 MPH reduction applied, then an E&TS shall document in writing the conditions and justification for the lower speed limit and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. The reasons for the lowe r speed limit shall be in compliance with CVC Sections 627 and 22358-22358.7.

Support:

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 8
DRAFT

12c: The following example is provided to explain the application of this speed limit criteria:

A. If the 85th percentile speed in a speed survey for a location was 37 MPH, then the speed limit would be established at 35 MPH since it is the closest 5 MPH increment to the 37 MPH speed. As indicated by the option, this 35 MPH established speed limit co uld be reduced by 5 MPH to 30 MPH if the conditions and justification for using this lower speed limit are documented in the E&TS and approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer.

The fundamentals used to establish speed limits recognize that the majority of drivers behave in a safe and reasonable manner but need to be advised of conditions which may not be readily apparent. For this reason, collision history, roadway conditions, t raffic characteristics, and land use, must be analyzed along with speed measurements to determine speed limits. Speed limit changes are usually coordinated with visible changes in roadway conditions or roadside developments.

In general, speed limits cannot be successfully enforced without voluntary compliance by a majority of drivers. Consequently, only the driver whose behavior is clearly out of line with the normal flow of traffic is considered a violator for enforcement purposes.

DATA COLLECTION:

Data was obtained regarding the prevailing speed of vehicles, traffic collisions, visibility restrictions, roadway conditions, presence of pedestrian activities /infrastructure, on -street parking, transit factors, Demographic factors and land use adjacent to the roadways. Radar speed measurements were conducted during the month of August 2024.

Highway, traffic, and roadside land uses were analyzed for conditions not readily apparent to motorists. The criteria and procedures described below were applied when using the electronic radar to measure vehicle speeds on selected streets within the City of Monterey Park . Traffic volume and speed in both directions were recorded.

The hours of radar operation were restricted to off-peak period for heavily traveled streets, and to non-congested peak periods on lightly traveled streets on a weekday. The radar measurements were taken from an unmarked vehicle so as not to alter or impede the free flow of traffic.

A total of 100 samples were obtained for each street segment surveyed, where possible. In no case were sample sizes less than 50 vehicles for each direction. For lower volume streets, samples of free-flowing speeds were taken over several periods/days in order to gather the required survey samples.

Collision data was obtained from the computerized accident records system maintained by the State of California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). For purposes of this study, information available for the most recent 4.0 -year period was used to develop the collision statistics as a part of the Engineering and Traffic Surveys. Collision data was obtained for the years of January 2020 to December 2023.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 9
DRAFT

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data at all (26) locations were obtained from counts taken by a private traffic counting firm in August 2024. These counts were taken while schools were in session. Any unusual counts were checked and redone in order to verify the amount of traffic each segment carries. The ADT counts were taken by NDS Services.

National Data & Surveying Services
8370 Wilshire Blvd. Ste, 205
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel (323) 782-0090
www.ndsdata.com

PROCEDURES:

The radar equipment used to collect speed measurements was a SCOUT-MPH Traffic Radar, SHD- 04287 serial number, manufactured by Decatur. The unit was calibrated before each series of measurements were taken. Tests of the unit were conducted in accordance wi th the manufacturer’s specifications.

The results of the radar speed measurements were computed, analyzed, and summarized on standard Traffic Survey Forms. Significant values obtained from computations are as follows:

• The Critical Speed or 85th percentile speed, is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. The Critical Speed is the primary guide in determining what the majority of drivers believe is safe and reasonable. Speed limits set higher than the Critical Speed are not considered reasonable and safe. The accepted practice is to set the speed limit at the nearest 5 MPH increment to the Critical Speed or 85th percentile speed unless other factors require a lower limit.

• The 5 or 10 MPH pace is a measure of the dispersion of speeds within the survey sample and is that 5 or 10 MPH increment containing the highest percentage of speeds in the total sample. The accepted practice is to keep the speed limit within the 10 MPH pac e after considering the Critical Speed and any factors requiring a speed lower than the Critical Speed.

The collision data for each street segment was compared to collision rates that can be reasonably expected to occur on streets and highways of the same characteristics. These anticipated collision rates have been developed by Caltrans and are applicable for use in the City of Monterey Park. The collision rates used for this study are as follows:

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 10
DRAFT

Current collision rates are shown in terms of “accidents per 1,000,000 vehicle miles of travel” for each segment. The rate was calculated for each segment using the following formula:

The Crossroads Software Collision Program calculated the collision rate for each segment.

As previously indicated, speed limits are usually set at or near the Critical Speed unless there are other factors not readily apparent to a reasonable motorist which may justify a lower limit. The field review of the selected street segments in the City of Monterey Park considered the following factors:

1. Street width and alignment, existing traffic calming measures installed.

2. Pedestrian activity and traffic flow characteristics.

3. Number of lanes, and other channelization and striping patterns.

4. Frequency of intersections, driveways, and on-street parking.

5. Location of stop signs, traffic signals, and other regulatory traffic control devices.

6. Visibility obstructions.

7. Land use and the proximity of schools, senior centers.

8. Uniformity with existing speed zones in adjacent jurisdictions.

9. Any other unusual condition not readily apparent to the driver.

10. Location of any uncontrolled Crosswalks.

11. Bike lanes, bike routes.

12. Adjacent to high concentration of pedestrians or bicyclists COLLISION RATE = (N x 5,280 x 1,000,000)/ (ADT x L x Y x 365)

N: number of collisions within the study segment
ADT: average daily traffic volume
L: length of segment in feet
Y: number of years of accident history

CALIFORNIA STATE HIGHWAYS
STATEWIDE TRAVEL AND COLLISION RATES*
URBAN (Inside City)
2 and 3 lanes
4 or more undivided
4 or more divided

EXPECTED COLLISION RATES

1.69 0.82

0.89 *Source:
2021 Prepared 2023 Crash Summary for District 7 on California State Highways published by State of California, Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Operations

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 11
DRAFT

SECTION 3: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Engineering and Traffic Survey summaries presented in this report illustrate the results of a thorough evaluation of the data collected and provides a recommended speed limit for each street segment surveyed. In each case, the recommended speed limit i s consistent with the prevailing behavior as demonstrated by the radar speed measurements.

The Legislature, in adopting Section 22358.5 of the California Vehicle Code, has made it clear that it is their intent that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning. The basic rule of Section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions.

The recommendations contained in this report were intended to establish prima facie speed limits.

Prima Facie limits advise the motorist and enforcement agencies of the reasonable speed for a section of highway for prevailing conditions. They are not inten ded to be absolute. All violations of these speed limits are violations of the basic speed law (Section 22350 of California Vehicle Code). This statute states that a person shall not drive a vehicle as a speed greater than is safe having regard for traffic, roadway, and weather conditions. A prima facie limit merely suggests a safe speed under normal conditions.

Out of the above 26 segments surveyed, based on the 2024 Engineering and Radar Speed survey results, it was determined that fourteen (14) of the speed limits on the studied segments are proposed to be changed.
• Alhambra Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue • Atlantic Boulevard between Harding Avenue and El Repetto Drive • Atlantic Boulevard between El Repetto Drive and Floral Drive • Avenida Cesar Chavez between West City Limit and Atlantic Boulevard • Floral Drive between Monterey Pass Road and Atlantic Boulevard • Garfield Avenue between Graves Avenue and El Repetto Drive • Garfield Avenue between El Repetto Drive and Riggin Street • Orange Avenue between Hellman Avenue and Garvey Avenue • Orange Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue • Orange Avenue between Graves Avenue and Metro Drive
• Orange Avenue between Metro Drive and Saturn Street
• Pomona Boulevard between Gerhart Avenue and Garfield Avenue • Pomona Boulevard between Garfield Avenue and Markland Drive • Potrero Grande Drive between Markland Drive and Arroyo Drive

The following Table 2 provides a summary of each of the segments included in the engineering and traffic survey indicating the existing posted speed limit, ADT, number of collisions, collision rates, 85th percentile speed, change in limit and proposed 2024 speed limit.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 12

DRAFT

Table 2: City of Monterey Park 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Adopted by Monterey Park City Council Ordinance No. XX-XX on October XX, 2024 ID Primary
Location
Limits
Street
Class. (A)
Existing
Posted
Speed
2024
ADT
No. of
Acc. in

4.0/yr
per.

Collision
Rate
Expected
Collision
Rate
85%
Speed
10 MPH
Pace
Limit
Per
85%
Change
in Limit?
Yes/No
Adopted
2024
Speed
Limit
Beginning Ending
1 Alhambra
Avenue
Hellman
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue Collector 30 7127 6 1.144 1.69 34.7 27-36 35 No 301 2 Alhambra
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue
Graves
Avenue Collector 35 6424 3 0.639 1.69 34.9 26-35 35 Yes 301 3 Atlantic
Boulevard
Hellman
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue Primary 30 27971 16 0.776 0.89 34.6 27-36 35 No 301 4 Atlantic
Boulevard
Garvey
Avenue
Harding
Avenue Primary 35 26927 21 1.229 0.82 37.2 30-39 35 No 35 5 Atlantic
Boulevard
Harding
Avenue
El Repetto
Drive Primary 40 25568 20 0.707 0.89 40.5 33-42 40 Yes 352 6 Atlantic
Boulevard
El Repetto
Drive Floral Drive Primary 40 25359 4 0.199 0.89 41.3 33-42 40 Yes 352 7 Atlantic
Boulevard Floral Drive First Street Primary 35 29927 21 1.445 0.82 37.8 30-39 40 No 351 8 Avenida
Cesar Chavez West City Limit Atlantic
Boulevard Secondary 35 16580 8 0.586 0.82 36.7 29-38 35 Yes 302 9 Floral Drive West City Limit Monterey Pass
Road Secondary 35 16573 5 0.474 0.82 36.9 29-38 35 No 35 10 Floral Drive Monterey Pass
Road
Atlantic
Boulevard Secondary 40 15323 16 0.616 1.69 39.0 31-40 40 Yes 352 11 Garfield
Avenue
Hellman
Avenue
Newmark
Avenue Primary 30 21013 17 0.803 0.82 34.7 27-36 35 No 301 12 Garfield
Avenue
Newmark
Avenue
Graves
Avenue Primary 35 20782 5 0.506 0.89 38.4 31-40 40 No 351 13 Garfield
Avenue
Graves
Avenue
El Repetto
Drive Primary 40 24932 11 0.519 0.82 40.5 33-42 40 Yes 352

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 13
DRAFT

Table 2: City of Monterey Park 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary Adopted by Monterey Park City Council Ordinance No. XX-XX on October XX, 2024 ID Primary
Location
Limits
Street
Class. (A)
Existing
Posted
Speed
2024
ADT
No. of
Acc. in

4.0/yr
per.

Collision
Rate
Expected
Collision
Rate
85%
Speed
10 MPH
Pace
Limit
Per
85%
Change
in Limit?
Yes/No
Adopted
2024
Speed
Limit
Beginning Ending
14 Garfield
Avenue
El Repetto
Drive Riggin Street Primary 40 24992 14 0.513 0.82 41.3 34-43 40 Yes 352 15 Garfield
Avenue Riggin Street Pomona
Boulevard Primary 35 20881 14 2.114 0.89 38.1 30-39 40 No 351 16 Garvey
Avenue
Casuda
Canyon Drive
Fremont
Avenue Secondary 40 12028 1 0.118 0.89 41.5 33-42 40 No 40 17 Garvey
Avenue
Fremont
Avenue
Atlantic
Boulevard Secondary 40 21495 8 0.382 0.89 42.4 35-44 40 No 40 18 Garvey
Avenue
Atlantic
Boulevard
Garfield
Avenue Secondary 30 19113 18 0.988 0.89 32.5 24-33 30 No 30 19 Garvey
Avenue
Garfield
Avenue New Avenue Secondary 30 21948 48 1.779 0.89 33.4 26-35 35 No 301 20 Orange
Avenue
Hellman
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue Secondary 30 1667 1 0.816 1.69 32.1 24-33 30 Yes 252 21 Orange
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue
Graves
Avenue Secondary 30 5266 3 0.788 1.69 32.0 24-33 30 Yes 252 22 Orange
Avenue
Graves
Avenue Metro Drive Secondary 30 7823 4 1.081 1.69 32.5 25-34 30 Yes 252 23 Orange
Avenue Metro Drive Saturn Street Secondary 35 5057 2 0.32 1.69 36.9 28-37 35 Yes 302 24 Pomona
Boulevard
Gerhart
Avenue
Garfield
Avenue Primary 40 24520 9 0.312 1.69 42.4 35-44 40 Yes 352 25 Pomona
Boulevard
Garfield
Avenue
Markland
Drive Primary 40 18997 12 0.603 1.69 42.0 34-43 40 Yes 352 26 Potrero
Grande Drive
Markland
Drive Arroyo Drive Primary 45 15429 18 0.644 0.89 45.9 38-47 45 Yes 402

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 14
DRAFT

(A): Street Classifications taken from the California Road Systems Map – FHA and Caltrans based on CVC40802(b)(1)

When a speed limit is to be posted, it shall be established at the nearest 5mph increment of the 85 th% speed of free-flowing traffic (CVC Section 22358.8.6a, except as shown in the options below for rounding down and/or using a 5mph speed reduction.

• Option 1: CVC 21400 (b) allows a 5 MPH Reduction in 85 th% speed by 5 MPH for Rounding Down to Nearest Posted Limit if no further reduction is used.
• Option 2: CVC 627, 22358.5 and CAMUTCD 2B.13 allows the posted speed to be reduced by 5 MPH from the 85 th% speed due to road conditions, high concentration of pedestrian and bicyclist, senior center and land use. • Option 3: CVC 627, 22358.5 posted speed may be set 5 MPH lower than 85 th% speed based on a higher-than-expected collision rate, land use and roadway conditions.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 15
DRAFT

SECTION 4: CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 SPEED LIMIT MAP AND AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) MAP
The following pages consist of:
• City of Monterey Park 2024 Speed Limit Map
• City of Monterey Park 2024 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Map.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 16

DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 17
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 18
DRAFT

SECTION 5: ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY SUMMARY FORMS The following pages consist of the Engineering and Traffic Survey Grid and Summary Forms for each segment included in the Survey.

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 19
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 20
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 21
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 22
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 23
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 24
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 25
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 26
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 27
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 28
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 29
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 30
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 31
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 32
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 33
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 34
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 35
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 36
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 37
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 38
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 39
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 40
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 41
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 42
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 43
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 44
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 45
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 46
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 47
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 48
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 49
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 50
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 51
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 52
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 53
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 54
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 55
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 56
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 57
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 58
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 59
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 60
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 61
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 62
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 63
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 64
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 65
DRAFT

SECTION 6: AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) COUNTS
The following pages consist of the ADT count sheets for all segments.

The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data was obtained from counts taken by a private traffic counting firm in August 2024. These counts were taken while school was in session.

ADT counts were taken by NDS Services.

National Data & Surveying Services
8370 Wilshire Blvd. Ste, 205
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Tel (323) 782-0090
Fax (323)375-1666
www.ndsdata.com

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 66
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 67
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 68
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 69
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 70
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 71
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 72
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 73
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 74
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 75
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 76
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 77
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 78
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 79
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 80
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 81
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 82
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 83
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 84
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 85
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 86
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 87
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 88
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 89
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 90
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 91
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 92
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 93
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 94
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 95
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 96
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 97
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 98
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 99
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 100
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 101
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 102
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 103
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 104
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 105
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 106
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 107
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 108
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 109
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 110
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 111
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 112
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 113
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 114
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 115
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 116
DRAFT

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK 2024 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY ADOPTED BY MONTEREY PARK CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO XX ON XX XX, 2024

CITY OF MONTEREY PARK
Prepared By: Transtech Engineers, Inc. | Page 117
DRAFT

Staff Report
January 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 2
November 6, 2024 Staff Report

City Council Staff Report
DATE: November 6, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO: New Business - 5A
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shawn Igoe, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance setting speed limits based upon certification of the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey for speed limits effective through October 2031 and the 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey of 26 Locations for speed limits through October 2038
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Introducing and waiving first reading for an Ordinance setting speed limits throughout the City; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

This Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq., the “CEQA Guidelines”) because it consists only of minor revisions and clarifications to an existing code of speed control regulations established in accordance with California law and will not have the effect of deleting or substantially changing any regulatory standards or findings. This Ordinance, therefore, is an action being taken for enhanced protection of the environment and that does not have the potential to cause significant effects on the environment. Consequently, it is categorically exempt in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301 as a minor alteration of existing public or private structures involving no expansion of use; 15305 as a minor alteration in land use limitations which do not result in any changes in land use or density; and 15308 as an action taken by a regulatory agency as authorized by California law to assure maintenance or protection of the environment.

BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:

The Public Works Director presented a draft engineering and traffic survey evaluating safe and reasonable speed limits 26 segments citywide, including its recommendations, to the Traffic Commission on October 17, 2024. The Traffic Commission was informed that the item would be presented to the City Council for consideration, and it did not express any questions or concerns.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Staff Report

November 6, 2024
The City’s consultant, Transtech Engineers, Inc., assessed and certified 45 segments listed in the City’s 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey and determined that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred on these segments, (see Attachment 2) including, without limitation, changes in adjoining property or land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, and therefore the posted speed limits are valid for 14 years from the adopted date of the survey effective between October 2017 through October 2031.

Twenty-six of the original 73 segments from the 2017 City-wide speed survey were separately reviewed and a new Engineering and Traffic Survey (“ETS”) was completed for these segments.

Transtech Engineers completed the ETS pursuant to California law including, without limitation, Vehicle Code § 627, for the purpose of establishing safe and reasonable speed limits. These may be enforced using radar at pre-determined locations . The ETS recommends reducing the speed limit on the following 14 of the 26 segments included in the ETS:
• Alhambra Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue • Atlantic Boulevard between Harding Avenue and El Repetto Drive • Atlantic Boulevard between El Repetto Drive and Floral Drive • Avenida Cesar Chavez between West City Limit and Atlantic Boulevard • Floral Drive between Monterey Pass Road and Atlantic Boulevard • Garfield Avenue between Graves Avenue and El Repetto Drive • Garfield Avenue between El Repetto Drive and Riggin Street • Orange Avenue between Hellman Avenue and Garvey Avenue • Orange Avenue between Garvey Avenue and Graves Avenue • Orange Avenue between Graves Avenue and Metro Drive
• Orange Avenue between Metro Drive and Saturn Street
• Pomona Boulevard between Gerhart Avenue and Garfield Avenue • Pomona Boulevard between Garfield Avenue and Markland Drive • Potrero Grande Drive between Markland Drive and Arroyo Drive Accordingly, the Public Works Director (“Director”) recommends that the City Council consider introducing and waiving first reading of the attached Ordinance.

BACKGROUND:

On November 1, 2017 City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2144, approving the 2017 Traffic Speed Zone Survey for 73 segments within the City. On September 4, 2024 the City adopted Ordinance No. 2248 establishing speed limits for 2 of the 73 segments along Hellman Ave. As part of the evaluation of the Citywide speed limits, Transtech evaluated 45 segments of the City’s 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey and determined that no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions have occurred on these segments , indicated on the following list, including but not limited to changes in adjoining property or

Staff Report

November 6, 2024
land use, roadway width, or traffic volume, and therefore the posted speed limits are valid between October 2017 through October 2031.

The following table lists the 45 segments recertified:

Table 1: City of Monterey Park 14-Year Certification of the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey Speed Limits
2017 Adopted Speed Limits are Effective until October of 2031 ID Primary Location Limits Street
Classification
CRS Maps
Adopted
2017 Speed
Limit
Beginning Ending
1 Abajo Road Garvey Avenue Vagabond Drive Local 25
2 Ackley Street Fulton Avenue Orange Avenue Collector 25 3 Ackley Street Orange Avenue Arroyo Drive Secondary 25 4 Brightwood Street Crest Vista Drive Atlantic Boulevard Local 25 5 Cadiz Street/Crest
Vista Drive Ridgecrest Street Atlantic Boulevard Collector 25 6 Casuda Canyon Drive Garvey Avenue Alzado Street Collector 25 7 Casuda Canyon Drive Alzado Street Corporate Center
Drive
Collector 30
8 Coral View Street Garfield Avenue Fulton Avenue Collector 25 9 Corporate Center
Drive
Ramona Boulevard Casuda Canyon
Drive
Secondary 40
10 Corporate Center
Drive
Casuda Canyon
Drive
Floral Drive Secondary 40
11 Crest Vista Drive Ridgcrest Street Floral Drive Collector 25 12 El Repetto Drive Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Collector 25 13 Emerson Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Secondary 25 14 Emerson Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Secondary 25 15 Findlay Avenue Riggin Street Pomona Boulevard Secondary 25 16 First Street West City Limit Atlantic Boulevard Secondary 35 17 Fulton Avenue Kempton Avenue Coral View Street Local/Collector 25 18 Fulton Avenue Coral View Street Floral Drive Collector 30 19 Fulton Avenue Floral Drive Pomona Boulevard Collector 25 20 Grandridge Avenue Garfield Avenue El Repetto Drive Local 25 21 Graves Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Secondary 30 22 Harding Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Ramona Avenue Secondary 25 23 Hillside Street Ridge Crest Street Floral Drive Local 25 24 Kempton Avenue Lincoln Avenue Fulton Avenue (s) Local 25 25 Markland Drive Riggin Street Potrero Grande Local/Collector 25

Staff Report

November 6, 2024
Drive
26 McPherrin Avenue Garvey Avenue Harding Avenue Local 25 27 Monterey Pass Road Garvey Avenue Vagabond Road Secondary 40 28 Monterey Pass Road Vagabond Road Floral Drive Secondary 40 29 New Avenue Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Principal Arterial 35 30 New Avenue Garvey Avenue Graves Avenue Secondary 35
31 Newmark Avenue Atlantic Boulevard Garfield Avenue Collector 30 32 Newmark Avenue Garfield Avenue New Avenue Collector 30 33 Ramona Avenue Garvey Avenue Garfield Avenue Collector 25 34 Ramona Boulevard West City Limits North City Limits Secondary 35 35 Ridgcrest Street Hillside Street Floral Avenue Local 25 36 Riggin Street Atlantic Boulevard Findlay Avenue Secondary 35 37 Riggin Street Findlay Avenue Garfield Avenue Secondary 35 38 Riggin Street Garfield Avenue Fulton Avenue Secondary/Loc al
30 39 Saturn Street Atlas Avenue Potrero Grande
Drive
Secondary 40
40 Verde Vista Drive Casuda Canyon
Drive
Abajo Drive Local 25
41 Wilcox Avenue Kempton Avenue Coral View Street Local 25 42 Wilcox Avenue Coral View Street Riggin Street Local/Secondar y
25 43 Wilcox Avenue Riggin Street Pomona Boulevard Secondary 35 44 Ynez Avenue Hellman Avenue Garvey Avenue Collector 30 45 Ynez Avenue Garvey Avenue Graves Avenue Local 25
Twenty-six segments were separately studied. Out of those, 14 segments are proposed to be changed as shown in Table 2 below.

When a speed limit is to be posted, it is established to the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed limit of free-flowing traffic. Allowed exceptions are:
• Option 1: A 5 MPH Reduction in 85th% speed by 5 MPH for Rounding Down to Nearest Posted Limit if no further reduction is used.
• Option 2: A 5 MPH from the 85th% speed due to road conditions, high concentration of pedestrian and bicyclist, senior center and land use. • Option 3: A 5 MPH lower than 85th% speed based on a higher-than -expected collision rate, land use and roadway conditions.

These options were considered as part of the Engineering and Traffic Survey performed.

Staff Report

November 6, 2024
14 Garfield
Avenue
El Repetto
Drive Riggin Street Primary 40 Yes 352
15 Garfield
Avenue Riggin Street Pomona
Boulevard Primary 35 No 351
16 Garvey
Avenue
Casuda
Canyon Drive
Fremont
Avenue
Secondary 40 No 40
17 Garvey
Avenue
Fremont
Avenue
Atlantic
Boulevard Secondary 40 No 40
18 Garvey
Avenue
Atlantic
Boulevard
Garfield
Avenue Secondary 30 No 30
Table 2: City of Monterey Park 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey Summary ID Primary
Location
Limits
Street
Class. (A)
Existing
Posted
Speed
Change
in Limit?
Yes/No
Proposed 2024
Speed Limit
Beginning Ending
1 Alhambra
Avenue
Hellman
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue Collector 30 No 301
2 Alhambra
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue
Graves
Avenue
Collector 35 Yes 301
3 Atlantic
Boulevard
Hellman
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue Primary 30 No 301
4 Atlantic
Boulevard
Garvey
Avenue
Harding
Avenue Primary 35 No 35
5 Atlantic
Boulevard
Harding
Avenue
El Repetto
Drive Primary 40 Yes 352
6 Atlantic
Boulevard
El Repetto
Drive Floral Drive Primary 40 Yes 352
7 Atlantic
Boulevard Floral Drive First Street Primary 35 No 351
8 Avenida
Cesar Chavez
West City Limit Atlantic
Boulevard
Secondary 35 Yes 302
9 Floral Drive West City Limit Monterey Pass
Road Secondary 35 No 35
10 Floral Drive Monterey Pass
Road
Atlantic
Boulevard
Secondary 40 Yes 352
11 Garfield
Avenue
Hellman
Avenue
Newmark
Avenue Primary 30 No 301
12 Garfield
Avenue
Newmark
Avenue
Graves
Avenue Primary 35 No 351
13 Garfield
Avenue
Graves
Avenue
El Repetto
Drive
Primary 40 Yes 352

Staff Report

November 6, 2024
19 Garvey
Avenue
Garfield
Avenue New Avenue Secondary 30 No 301
20 Orange
Avenue
Hellman
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue Secondary 30 Yes 252
21 Orange
Avenue
Garvey
Avenue
Graves
Avenue Secondary 30 Yes 252
22 Orange
Avenue
Graves
Avenue Metro Drive Secondary 30 Yes 252
23 Orange
Avenue Metro Drive Saturn Street Secondary 35 Yes 302
24 Pomona
Boulevard
Gerhart
Avenue
Garfield
Avenue Primary 40 Yes 352
25 Pomona
Boulevard
Garfield
Avenue
Markland
Drive Primary 40 Yes 352
26 Potrero
Grande Drive
Markland
Drive Arroyo Drive Primary 45 Yes 402
The purpose of the ETS is to establish updated speed limits that can be enforced using radar. Applicable sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and Department of Transportation California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) were followed so that the posted speed limits can be upheld by the courts and do not constitute a "Speed Trap" as defined by California law.

By preparing the ETS, and after appropriate signage is posted giving notice of the speed limits, the Police Department may use radar and other electronic devices that measure the speed of moving objects to enforce the posted speed limit. 2024-25 STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL:

The proposed Ordinance supports the City’s strategic goal to maintain, build and modernize infrastructure and facilities to support the current and future needs of the City and community.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Upon adoption of the proposed resolution, City staff will replace the speed limit signs along the affected 14 segments where speed limits is proposed to be reduced. The cost for sign replacement is included in the City’s FY 2024-25 operational budget in Traffic Control account 239-4206-5315
Respectfully submitted by:

Staff Report

November 6, 2024
Shawn Igoe
Public Works Director
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney
ATTACHMENT:

1. Ordinance (including Exhibit “A” (ETS))

2. Certification of the 2017 Engineering and Traffic Survey to 14 years

3. 2024 Engineering and Traffic Survey of 26 locations

City Council Staff Report
+
DATE: January 15, 2025
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Christine Tomikawa, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management
SUBJECT: Consideration and possible action to waive second reading of an Ordinance amending the Monterey Park Municipal Code Chapter 2.32 updating Employee Relations
RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Waiving second reading and adopting the proposed ordinance amending Chapter

2.32 of Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) revising Employee Relations procedures; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Ordinance was introduced and first reading was waived at the December 18, 2024 City Council meeting. The initial staff report (from December 18, 2024) is attached for reference. Second reading and adoption of the Ordinance is recommended. If adopted, the ordinance will take effect in 30 days.

Respectfully submitted by:

Christine Tomikawa
Director of Human Resources
and Risk Management
Approved by: Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Justin A. Tamayo
Assistant City Attorney
Consent Calendar - 3D

Staff Report

January 15, 2025

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance

2. City Council Staff Report, dated December 18, 2024 (without attachments)

Staff Report
January 15, 2025

ATTACHMENT 1
Ordinance

ORDINANCE NO. ____

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MONTEREY PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 2.32 IN ITS ENTIRETY GOVERNING EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIPS AND BARGAINING UNITS.

The City Council of the City of Monterey Park does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) Chapter 2.32 is amended in its entirety as set forth in attached Exhibit “A,” which is incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2. Environmental Assessment. Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because the Ordinance is for general policies and procedure-making.

SECTION 3. Preservation. Repeal of any provision of the MPMC will not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before, this Ordinance’s effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective date of this Ordinance.

SECTION 4. Conflicts. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of this Ordinance and the provisions the MPMC, any other ordinance, or any resolution, the provisions of this Ordinance and the Program govern. The Director is authorized to resolve any ambiguities in the manner set forth in the MPMC. Any such determination must be forwarded to the City Council as an informational item when practicable.

SECTION 5. Electronic Signatures. This Ordinance may be executed with electronic signatures in accordance with Government Code §16.5. Such electronic signatures will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

SECTION 6. Construction. This Ordinance must be broadly construed in order to achieve the purposes stated in this Ordinance. It is the City Council’s intent that the provisions of this Ordinance be interpreted or implemented by the City and others in a manner that facilitates the purposes set forth in this Ordinance.

SECTION 7. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.

SECTION 8. Recordation. The City Clerk, or his duly appointed deputy, is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Monterey Park’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and

adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within 15 days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law.

SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance will take effect on the 30 th day following its
final passage and adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ________ day of ____________, 2024.

________________________
Vinh Ngo, Mayor

ATTEST:

______________________________
Maychelle Yee, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM

______________________________
Karl H. Berger, City Attorney

Exhibit A

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

2.32.010 Purpose.

2.32.020 Definitions.

2.32.030 Employee groups.

2.32.040 Petition for recognition.

2.32.050 Recognition of majority representatives.

2.32.060 Procedure for decertification of recognized employee organization.

2.32.070 Procedure for modification of established appropriate units.

2.32.080 Procedure for processing severance requests.

2.32.090 Determination of appropriate unit.

2.32.100 Appeals.

2.32.010 Purpose.

This chapter is authorized under Government Code Sections 3500, et seq., and is intended to provide a means to promote full communication between the city and its employees to provide a reasonable method of resolving disputes regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment.

The city must meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations and consider fully such presentations as are made by the employee organization on behalf of its members before to arriving at a determination of policy of course of action.

2.32.020 Definitions.

Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter. Terms used that are used in Government Code Sections 3500 et seq. have the same meanings as are provided in said code:

“City representative” for all employer-employee relations under this chapter is a committee composed of the city personnel officer as chairman and staffed by additional members consisting of the city manager and other persons as may be from time to time selected by the city manager.

“Day” means calendar day unless expressly stated otherwise “Employee” means any full time employee of the city except, elective officers , the city manager, or the city attorney.

“Confidential employee” means any employee whose duties would give the employee access to decisions and decision making processes of the city concerning any matters relating to employer-employee relations.

“Employee organization” means either of the following: (a) any organization that includes employees of the city and that has as one of its primary purposes representing those employees in their relations with the city; (b) any organization that seeks to represent employees of the city in their relations with the city.

“Employee representative” means the authorized representative of a recognized employee organization as set forth in this chapter.

“Employee Relations Officer” means the person designated by the city manager or as determined by the administrative code.

“Failure to agree” means the city representative and a recognized employee organization have been unable to reach agreement concerning a subject over which they are required to meet and confer in good faith.

“Mediation and conciliation” means the use of a neutral third person to assist the city representative
and a recognized employee organization to voluntarily reach an accord where there has been a “failure to agree.”

“Meet and confer in good faith” means that the city, or such representatives as it may designate and representative of recognized employee organizations, have the mutual obligation personally to meet and confer to freely exchange information, opinions, and proposals, and to endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation.

“Professional employee” means employees engaged in work requiring specialized knowledge and skills attained through completion of a recognized course of instruction, including, but not limited to, attorneys, physicians, registered nurses, engineers, architects, teachers, and the various types of physical, chemical, and biological scientists.“ Recognized employee organization” means an employee organization that the city has formally acknowledged as representing the majority of the employees in a group for recognition designated by the city. An employee organization while so recognized is the only recognized employee organization for employees in such employee group.

“Supervisors and management” means:

A. Any employee having significant responsibilities for formulating and administering city policies and programs including, without limitation the city manager and department heads; and

B. Any employee having authority in the interest of the city to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline other employees, or having the responsibility to direct them or to adjust grievances or to effectively recommend such action if in connection with the foregoing, the exercise of such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires the use of independent judgment.

2.32.030 Employee groups.

To be recognized for the purposes of this chapter, an employee organization must represent a majority of the employees in an employee group.

The city has investigated and studied the work assignments and interest of all city employees. The city has made conclusions based on this study that there are separate and distinct employee groups and that the acknowledgement of these groups will be most conducive to harmonious employer -employee relations and to the efficient operation of the city. The separate employee groups shall be acknowledged by City Council resolution.

Supervisors, management and confidential employees may not represent employees of any group outside their own (if any). Professional employees may seek separate recognition through a professional employee organization. (Ord. 1259 § 1, 1969; prior code § 2253)

2.32.040 Petition for recognition.

Any employee organization which seeks to be recognized as an employee organization representing the employees in an appropriate unit must file with the Employee Relations Officer a petition containing the following information:

A. Name and address of the employee organization;
B. Names and titles of its officers, and mailing and email addresses; C. Names, email addresses, and telephone numbers of employee organization representatives who are authorized to speak on behalf of the organization in any communication with the city;
D. A copy of the employee organization’s constitution or bylaws contains a statement that the employee organization has as one of its primary purposes representation of the employees in their employment relations with the city.

E. A statement whether the employee organization is a chapter of, or affiliated directly or indirectly in any manner, with a local, regional, state, national or international organization, and, if so, the name and address of each such other organization.

F. A designation of those persons, not exceeding two in number, and their addresses, and/or email addresses, to whom notice sent by regular United States mail and/or email will be deemed sufficient notice on the employee organization for any purpose.

G. A statement that the employee organization has no restriction on membership based on race, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, medical condition, military or veteran status, gender identity or expression, genetic information, or any other legally-protected classification.

H. The job classifications or position titles of employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate and the approximate number of member employees therein.

I. A statement that the employee organization has in its possession proof of employee support to establish that a majority of the employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate have designated the employee organization to represent them in their employment relations with the city. Such written proof shall be submitted for confirmation to the Employee Relations Officer.

J. A request that the Employee Relations Officer formally acknowledge the petitioning employee organization as the recognized employee organization for purposes of representing the employees in the unit claimed to be appropriate in their relations with the city.

The Petition, including the proof of employee support and all accompanying documentation, shall be declared to be true, correct, and complete, under penalty of perjury, by the duly authorized officer(s) of the employee organization executing it. (Ord. 1259 § 1, 1969; prior code § 2254)

2.32.050 Recognition of majority representatives.

A. City Response to Recognition Petition
After receiving a petition, the Employee Relations Officer must determine whether:

1. There is compliance with the requirements for the filing of a Recognition Petition,

The proposed representation unit is an appropriate unit as required by this chapter . If an affirmative determination is made by the Employee Relations Officer on the foregoing two matters, the Employee Relations Officer will so inform the petitioning employee organization; give written notice of such request for recognition to the employees in the unit ; and take no action on the request for 30 days thereafter. If either of the foregoing matters are not affirmatively determined, the Employee Relations Officer must offer to consult with such petitioning employee organization and, if such determination thereafter remains unchanged, shall inform that organization of the reasons in writing.

The petitioning employee organization may appeal such determination in accordance with this chapter.

B. Open Period for Filing Challenging Petition

Within 30 days of the date written notice was given to affected employees that a valid recognition petition for an appropriate unit has been filed, any other employee organization may file a competing request to be formally acknowledged as the recognized employee organization of the employees in the same or in an overlapping unit (one which corresponds with respect to some, but not all the classifications or positions set forth in the recognition petition being challenged), by filing a petition evidencing proof of employee support in the unit claimed to be appropriate of at least 30% support in the unit claimed to be appropriate and otherwise in the same form and manner by this chapter. If such challenging petition seeks establishment of an overlapping unit, the Employee Relations Officer must call for a hearing on such overlapping petitions for the purpose of determining the more appropriate unit, at which time the petitioning employee organizations will be heard. Thereafter, the Employee Relations Officer m ust determine the appropriate unit or units in accordance with the standards in this chapter and provide written notice of the Employee Relations Office determination to all petitioning employee organizations.

If the petitioning employee organizations do not agree with the decision rendered by the Employee Relations Officer, the petitioning employee organizations have 15 days from the date of when the notice of such unit determination is communicated to them by the Employee Relations Officer to amend their petitions to conform to such determination or to appeal such determination.

C. Granting Recognition Without an Election

If the Petition is deemed compliant by the Employee Relations Officer, and the proof of support shows that a majority of the employees in the unit deemed to be appropriate have designated the petitioning employee organization to represent them, and if no other employee organization filed a challenging petition, the petitioning employee organization and the Employee Relations Officer must request the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service (“SMCS”), or another agreed-upon neutral third party, to review the count, form, accuracy and propriety of the proof of support. If the neutral third party makes an affirmative determination, the Employee Relations Officer must formally acknowledge the petitioning employee organization as the recognized employee organization for the designated unit.

D. Election Procedure

Where recognition is not granted without an election, then, upon determination of an appropriate unit, the Employee Relations Officer must arrange for a secret ballot election to be conducted by a party agreed to by the Employee Relations Officer and the concerned employee organization(s), in accordance with such party's rules and procedures subject to the provisions of this chapter. All employee organizations submitted petitions which determined to conformance with this chapter must be included on the ballot to provide employees the choice of representing themselves individually in their employment relations with the city.

Employees entitled to vote in such election shall be those persons employed in regular permanent positions within the designated appropriate unit who were employed during the pay period immediately before the date which ended at least 15 days before the date the election commences, including those who did not work during such period because of illness, vacation or other authorized leaves of absence, and who are employed by the city in the same unit on the date of the election. An employee organization must be formally acknowledged as the recognized employee organization for the designated appropriate unit following an election or run-off election if it received a numerical majority of all valid votes cast in the election. In an election involving three or more choices, where none of the choices receives a majo rity of the valid votes cast, a run-off election must be conducted between the two choices receiving the largest number of valid votes cast. The rules governing an initial election shall also apply to a run-off election.

There shall be no more than one valid election under this Section 2.32 pursuant to any petition in a 12-month period affecting the same unit.

Should SMCS decline to conduct the election, the parties will cause the election to be conducted by a neutral arbitrator selected from a list of seven names to be provided by SMCS or, if that body for any reason fails to provide such a list, by the American Arbitration Association. The incumbent recognized employee organization may first strike one name, the petitioning organization may then strike one name, the Employee Relations Officer may next strike one name, and alternate so forth until the last name remaining shall be the Election Supervisor.

If the parties cannot agree as to the time, place, and manner of the election, then the Election Supervisor is authorized to unilaterally determine such issues and carry out the election accordingly.

Costs of conducting elections must be borne in equal shares by the city and by each employee organization appearing on the ballot.

Nothing prohibits any city employee the right to organize and join any organization of their choice or refraining from or refusing to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations. (Ord. 1259 § 1, 1969; prior code § 2255)

2.32.060: Procedure for Decertification of Recognized Employee Organization.

A Decertification Petition alleging that the incumbent r ecognized employee organization no longer represents a majority of the employees in an established appropriate unit may be filed with the Employee Relations Officer only during the month of March of any year following the first full year of recognition or during the 30 day period commencing 120 days before the termination date of a Memorandum of Understanding then having been in effect less than three years, whichever occurs later.

A Decertification Petition may be filed by two or more employees or their representative, or an employee organization, and must contain the following information and documentation declared by the duly authorized signatory under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California to be true, correct, and complete:

1. The name, address and telephone number of the petitioner and a designated representative authorized to receive notices or requests for further information.

2. The name of the established appropriate unit and of the incumbent Recognized Employee Organization sought to be decertified as a representative of that unit.

3. An allegation that the incumbent recognized employee organization no longer represents a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, and any other relevant and material facts relating thereto.

4. Proof of employee support that at least 30% of the employees in the established appropriate unit no longer desire to be represented by the incumbent Recognized Employee Organization.

Such proof must be submitted for confirmation to the Employee Relations Officer within the time limits specified in this section.

An employee organization may, in satisfaction of the Decertification Petition requirements set forth in this section, file a Petition under this Section in the form of a Recognition Petition that evidences proof of employee support of at least 30%percent, that includes the allegation and information required under this section.

The Employee Relations Officer must initially determine whether the Petition was filed in compliance with the applicable provisions of this section. If the Employee Relations Officer determines the Petition is not compliant, the Employee Relations Officer must offer to consult with the representative(s) of such petitioning employees or employee organization and, if such determination thereafter remains unchanged, return such Petition to the employees or employee organization with a statement of the reasons in writing.

If the Employee Relations Officer determines the Petition is compliant , or if such a determination is made following appeal, the Employee Relations Officer must give written notice of such Decertification or Recognition Petition to the incumbent r ecognized employee organization and to unit employees. Upon request, the Employee Relations Officer must provide a copy of the Petition with names and all other identifying information redacted.

Thereafter, the Employee Relations Officer must arrange for a secret ballot election to be held on or about 30 days after such notice to determine the wishes of unit employees as to the question of decertification and, if a Recognition Petition was duly filed hereunder, the question of representation. Such election must be conducted in conformance with chapter .

If, pursuant to this section, a different employee organization is formally acknowledged as the recognized employee organization, such organization is bound by all the terms and conditions of any Memorandum of Understanding then in effect for its remaining term.

2.32.070: Procedure for Modification of Established Appropriate Units.

A. Requests to modify established appropriate units must be submitted in the form of a petition for recognition and, in addition to the requirements, contain a complete statement of all relevant facts and citations in support of the proposed modified. The Employee Relations Officer shall process such petition as recognition petitions are processed.

B. When new classifications are adopted, existing classifications abolished, or when a classification is no longer compatible with the existing bargaining unit under the standards set forth in this chapter, the Employee Relations Officer may propose that an established unit be modified. The Employee Relations Officer must give written notice of the proposed modification(s) to any affected employee organization. Any affected employee organization, may, within seven days after service of notice, request a meeting with the Employee Relations Officer by which to contest the proposal(s). That meeting is informal and may consist of the participating employee organization providing verbal and/or written input regarding its position.

Not later than seven days after receiving a request to meet, the Employee Relations Officer must conduct such meeting at which time all affected employee organizations must be heard.

C. Thereafter, the Employee Relations Officer must determine the composition of the appropriate unit or units and give written notice of such determination to the affected employee organizations.

D. The Employee Relations Officer determination may be appealed. If a unit is modified, employee organizations may thereafter file petitions of recognition seeking to become the recognized employee organization for such new appropriate unit(s).

2.32.080: Procedure for Processing Severance Requests.

An employee organization may file a request to become the recognized employee organization of a unit alleged to be appropriate that consists of a group of employees who are already a part of a larger established unit represented by another recognized employee organization. The timing, form and processing of such request are as specified for modification requests.

2.32.090: Determination of Appropriate Unit.

A. The policy objectives in determining the appropriateness of units regarding the effect of a proposed unit are:

1. Efficient operations of the city and its compatibility with the primary responsibility of the city and its employees to effectively and economically serve the public; and

2. Providing employees with effective representation based on recognized community of interest considerations.

B. These policy objectives require that the appropriate unit shall be the broadest feasible grouping of positions that share an identifiable community of interest. Factors to be considered are :

1. Similarity of the general kinds of work performed, types of qualifications required, and the general working conditions.

2. History of representation in the city and in similar employment; except however, that no unit may be deemed to be an appropriate unit solely on the basis of the extent to which employees in the proposed unit have organized.

3. Consistency with the organizational patterns of the city.

4. Number of employees and classifications, and the effect on the administration of employer - employee relations because of the fragmentation of classifications and/or proliferation of units.

5. Effect on the classification structure and impact on the stability of the employer -employee relationship because of dividing a single or related classification among two or more units.

C. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, managerial, supervisory , and confidential responsibilities, are determinative factors in establishing appropriate units hereunder.

Therefore, such managerial, supervisory , and confidential employees may not represent any employee organization which represents other employees and may only be included in a unit consisting solely of managerial, supervisory , or confidential employees respectively.

2.32.100: Appeals.

A. An employee organization aggrieved by a determination of the Employee Relations Officer that a Recognition Petition, Challenging Petition, Decertification Petition, Determination of an Appropriate Unit, Unit Modification Petition, or Severance Request was not filed in compliance with this chapter may, within 10 calendar days of notice thereof, appeal such determination to the City Manager for final decision.

B. Appeals to the City Manager must be filed in writing with the City Clerk and a copy be provided to the Employee Relations Officer by the appellant. The written appeal must be received by the City Clerk no later than 10 calendar days after the Employee Relations Officer sent a decision.

An employee organization’s appeal must state the complete basis for the appeal and be confined to a determination of whether or not the unit resulting from the Employee Relations Officer’s decision was appropriate. The City Manager must issue a final written decision as to whether the Employee Relations Officer’s decision was appropriate. If the City Manager finds the decision was not appropriate, the City Manager will make the final decision.

C. The City Manager must conduct the appeal hearing within 15 calendar days after receiving the appeal and issue a written decision within 15 calendar days after conclusion of the hearing.

The City Manager’s decision shall be final and binding. There is no right for an appeal to the city council.

Staff Report
January 15, 2025

ATTACHMENT 2
City Council Staff Report, dated
December 18, 2024

City Council Staff Report
+

DATE: December 18, 2024
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:

Christine Tomikawa, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management
SUBJECT: Amendment to Monterey Park Municipal Code Chapter 2.32 updating Employee Relations

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Introducing and waiving first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 2.32 of Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”) revising Employee Relations procedures; and

2. T aking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The City conducted a review of the Employee Relations section in the Monterey Park Municipal Code (“MPMC”). This occurred after the California Public Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) found that the City’s procedures for recogni zing associations/unions were insufficient for mak ing an appropriate union designation. The proposed changes to MPMC Chapter 2.32 provide the appropriate procedures and processes to recognize or appeal new associations/unions. City representatives discussed and reviewed the MPMC section modification with representatives from the current recognized associations/unions. The association/union representatives had an opportunity to meet and discuss the impacts of the revisions and the groups agreed with the revisions. The proposed amendments to the MPMC provide processes and procedures for associations recognition along with appeal and decertification procedures.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15000, et seq.) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3) because the Ordinance is for general policies and procedure-making.

BACKGROUND:

Staff Report

December 18, 2024

MPMC Chapter 2.32 has not been revised since 1969 and lacks clearly defined processes/procedures related to decertification/severance, appeal, determination of appropriate unit, and various revised definitions, for employee associations/unions. This section of the municipal code is typically referred to as the Employee-Employer Relations Ordinance (“EERO”) and is considered a foundational section for union- employer relations.

The representatives from the eight current associations/unions were provided an opportunity to review the changes in the MPMC section, provide input, and review the revisions from the group input. The groups understood the revisions are foundational for appropriate procedures for new associations/unions to be recognized by the City. The current association/union representatives have agreed on the revised MPMC Chapter

2.32. FISCAL IMPACT:

None

Respectfully submitted by:

Christine Tomikawa
Director of Human Resources
and Risk Management

Approved by:

Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Karl H. Berger
City Attorney

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance

2. Municipal Code 2.32 - Redline

City Council Staff Report
DATE: January 15, 2025
AGENDA ITEM NO:

TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Thompson, Fire Chief
SUBJECT: Receive and File the Fire Department’s 2024 Annual Report.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the City Council consider:

1. Receiving and filing the Fire Department’s 2024 Annual Report; and

2. Taking such additional, related, action that may be desirable.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The 2024 Fire Department (“Department”) Annual Report provides an overview of the Fire Department’s past operational year. The report highlights the Department’s goals and accomplishments. Included in the report are some of the major accomplishments made by staff during the past year, highlighting the work performed by Department staff.

To ensure residents and community members are informed of the Department’s accomplishments and efforts over the past year, the report is posted on the City’s website, under Department’s Operations page. The report will also be shared on the City’s social media accounts as well.

BACKGROUND:

The Annual Report features information on the six divisions within the Department: (1) Administration, (2) Community Risk Reduction, (3) Operations and Emergency Medical Services, (4) Training and Recruitment, (5) Fire Prevention , and (6) Code Compliance .

The report highlights the Department staffing levels, major accomplishments and goals for the next year.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

Respectfully submitted by: Prepared by:

Chris Thompson
Fire Chief
Rebecca Bojorquez
Principal Management Analyst
Consent Calendar - 3E

Staff Report

January 15, 2025

Approved by:

Reviewed by:

Inez Alvarez
City Manager
Justin A. Tamayo
Assistant City Attorney

ATTACHMENT:

1. Monterey Park Fire Department Annual Report 2024

Staff Report
January 15, 2025
ATTACHMENT 1
Fire Department Annual Report 2024

SINCE 1924
EXCELLENCE SERVICE COMMUNITYANNUAL REPORT 2024

MONTEREY PARK

FIRE DEPARTMENT
CLASS - 1

TABLE OF
C

ONTENTS
ANNUAL REPORT 2024

EXCELLENCE SERVICE COMMUNITY
COVER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHIEF'S MESSAGE

ABOUT THE MPFD

FIRE ADMINISTRATION

A-COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION

B-OPERATIONS & EMS

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

C-TRAINING & RECRUITMENT

MPFD PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS

URBAN SEARCH & RESCUE

VERDUGO FIRE DISPATCH

FIRE PREVENTION

STATIONS 61, 62, 63

FLEET & APPARATUS

ARSON TASK FORCE

WHERE WE ARE GOING

REPORT SECTIONS
Firefighter Charlie T
ullius
Engineer Jeff Wong

ANNUAL REPORT 2024
SINCE 1924EXCELLENCE SERVICE COMMUNITY

FIRE CHIEF CHRIS THOMPSON

MPFD CHIEF'S

MESSAGE
As we reflect on the past year, I am proud to present the 2024 Annual Fire Report, showcasing th
e dedication, resilience, and professionalism of the Monterey Park Fire Department. This report highlights not only our operational achievements, but also our unwavering commitment to serving and protecting the community. This was a special year, with it being the anniversary of 100 years of service protecting the community of Monterey Park.

Over the course of the year, we responded to over 9000 calls for service & incidents, ranging from fires and medical emergencies to disaster responses and community outreach efforts.

These statistics, however, only tell part of the story. Behind each response lies countless hours of training, preparation, and teamwork, ensuring that we meet every challenge with the highest standards of service.

We also prioritized community preparedness, fire prevention and public education. Our CERT program, smoke detector installation and community preparedness clinics, engage with thousands of residents to promote safety and preparedness. The extreme amount of effort is vital to reducing risks and building a safer community for all.

This year brought its share of challenges, from retirements and staffing, to adapting to the evolving needs in our rapidly growing community. I’m extremely proud that our department has remained steadfast, embracing innovation and collaboration to overcome these hurdles.

I extend my deepest gratitude to all members of the Monterey Park Fire Department and community partners, whose dedication makes our mission possible. I am also thankful to the residents of Monterey Park for their ongoing support and trust in our work.

As we move forward, we remain committed to continuous improvement, ensuring that we are ready to meet the needs of our community today and in the years to come. Thank you for taking the time to review our report and for joining us in building a safer future.

Sincerely,

Chris Thompson- Fire Chief

ABOUT THE
MPF
D
ANNUAL REPORT 2024

EXCELLENCE SERVICE COMMUNITY

PAST AND PRESENT
The Fire Department has been serving the
community
with fire protection,
hazardous materials response, disaster
preparedness, and emergency medical
services for several decades. We are very
proud of the men and women who strive
each day to save lives and protect
property as well as promote disaster
preparedness and teach fire safety to
children and adults alike.

WELCOME
For the past few years, the Fire Department has
been
moving towards a community-centered
metric driven organization committed to
providing quality emergency, preventative, and
risk reduction activities to the community.

Personnel have become more proactive towards
risk identification, public education, safety
education, increased Community Emergency
Response T eams ("CERT") training, and fire
investigation activities, along with specialized
training for all firefighters.

Moving in this direction, and through the hard
work and efforts of the fire personnel, the City has
achieved a Public Protection Classification (PPC)
rating of a Class 1 by the Insurance Services
Offices (ISO). Out of 33,000 fire departments in
the United States, Monterey Park is one of 132
agencies that has achieved this designation.

Firefighters Jeff Wong and Cory Bancroft
Engine 61 assisting wildland firefighting efforts in Northern California

626-307-1262
F
IRE

ADMINISTRATION
Responsibilities:

Administr
ation consists of the Fire Chief and
his administrative staff. The Fire Chief, under
the direction of the City Manager and the
City Council, is responsible for long-range
planning, budgeting, personnel development,
setting and meeting specific goals and
objectives relative to maintaining and
improving levels of services to the
community. The Fire Chief maintains
consistent levels of performance and
productivity by constantly evaluating and
reviewing the progress made towards the
stated objectives.

The Fire Chief achieves these standards by
employing a variety of modern management
techniques, leadership, and staff who provide
a high level of competence and integrity in
service delivery.

Administrative Staff consists of a Senior
Account Clerk's (Nanette Thompson & Anays
Navarro) and Principal Management Analyst
(Rebecca Bojorquez) who provide support to
the Chief, Battalion Chiefs and handle public
records requests for fire and emergency
medical reports, Paramedic Ambulance
Subscription Program memberships, public
education requests, tour coordination,
budget and grants management, and special
projects as assigned.

Innovation:

Fire Chief Chris Thompson believes in
proactive efforts to streamline and
implement innovative and cost effective
solutions when possible. Recent
accomplishments include interfacing the
department’s staffing and scheduling system
to the city’s online time-card system,
implementation of electronic patient care
reporting, EMS bill processing, direct
deposits, and automation of the
department’s standard operating procedures
with daily training bulletins.

EXCELLENCE SERVICE COMMUNITY
Nanette Thompson
Senior Account Clerk
Rebecca Bojorquez
Principal Management Analyst
Anays Navarro
Senior A
ccount Clerk